BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION

Transcription

1 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION APRIL 2009 Incorporating Through Change 4, 3 AUGUST 2011 AIR FORCE ISR AGENCY Supplement 10 AUGUST 2011 Acquisition ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available for downloading or ordering on the e- Publishing website at RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication. OPR: SAF/AQXA Supersedes: AFI10-602, 18 Mar 2005; AFI20-104, 11 Dec 1998; AFI21-133(I), 31 Mar 1999; AFI21-303, 8 Oct 2006; AFI21-401, 31 Jan 1994; AFI21-403, 18 Mar 1994; AFI62-201, 25 Jul 1994; AFI63-101, 29 Jul 2005; AFI63-105, 10 May 1994; AFI63-107, 10 Nov 2004; AFI , 21 Oct 2005; AFI63-201, 21 Jul 1994; AFI63-801, 25 Jul 1994 OPR: AFISRA/A4RX Supersedes: AFI /AFISRA Supplement, 20 November 2007 (AFISRA) Certified by: SAF/AQX (Mr. Durante) Pages: 252 Certified by: AFISRA/A4/7 (Colonel Eric J. Payne) Pages:19

2 2 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/20-1, Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management. It establishes the Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) guidelines, policies and procedures for Air Force (AF) personnel who develop, review, approve, or manage systems, subsystems, end-items and services (referred to as programs throughout this document) procured under DOD Instruction (DODI) , Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. Additionally, this AF Instruction (AFI) implements the policies in Department of Defense Directive (DODD) , The Defense Acquisition System, DODI , (collectively called the DOD 5000 acquisition series), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, DODI , U.S. Participation in Certain NATO Groups Relating to Research, Development Production, and Logistics Support of Military Equipment, DODI , Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U. S. Armed Forces, DODI , The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), DODI , Serialize Item Management (SIM) for Material Maintenances, DODI , Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process, DODI , Public-Private Partnerships for Depot Level Maintenance, DODI , Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+), DODD , Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, DODD , Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning and Its Operational Execution, DODD , DOD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program, DODD , Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Workforce Education, Training, and Career Development Program, DODI , Operation of the Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Workforce Education, Training, and Career Development Program, DODI , Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure (as applicable to non-facilities), DODD , Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense, DODI , Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, 10 USC Procurement of Services, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) , Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) , Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, and CJCSI , Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification. This AFI must be used in conjunction with AFI , Capabilities-Based Requirements Development, AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, AFI , Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation and AFI , Logistics Strategic Planning Procedures. Statutory law, Federal, DOD or Joint Staff (JS) directives take precedence. If there is any conflicting guidance between this AFI and DOD 5000-series, CJCSI , CJCSM , the latter (DOD 5000-series, or CJCSI/M ) shall take precedence. To ensure standardization, any organization supplementing this instruction must send the implementing publication to SAF/AQX for review and coordination before publishing. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to SAF/AQXA using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Form 847s from the field through MAJCOM publications/forms managers. Records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AFMAN , Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the AF Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at

3 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST This publication applies to all military and civilian Air Force personnel including major commands (MAJCOMS), direct reporting units (DRU) and field operating agencies (FOA); other individuals or organizations as required by binding agreement or obligation with the Department of the Air Force (DAF). This publication applies to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Units. This publication applies to the Air National Guard (ANG). For nuclear systems or related components ensure the appropriate nuclear regulations are applied. Nuclear components governed by joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy agreements are not covered by this instruction. (AFISRA) AFI , 17 April 2009 is supplemented as follows. This supplement establishes acquisition and sustainment life cycle management guidelines, policies and procedures for the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA) and subordinate organizations. The supplement describes the acquisition and sustainment life cycle management interface between the AFISRA, National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and other external Department of Defense (DoD) organizations for mission capabilities. Additionally, this supplement implements the requirements in NSA/CSS Policy 8-1, Acquisition Management System; NSA/CSS Policy and Manual 8-3, Acquisition Logistics Management; NSA/CSS Policy and Manual 10-4, Capability Deployment Management Process; NSA/CSS Policy 6-1, Management of NSA/CSS Information Technology (IT) Assets; NSA/CSS Policy 10-1, Test and Evaluation; NSA/CSS Policy and Manual 1-12, Configuration Management; DoD Directive , National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 801, Acquisition; and, Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) Acquisition. This supplement applies to all AFISRA staff offices, subordinate Centers, Wings/Groups, AFISRAgained Air National Guard and AF organizations performing cryptologic activities for which the AFISRA has Service Cryptologic Component (SCC) authority. (AFISRA) Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Forms 847 from the field through the appropriate functional s chain of command. Maintain records created as a result of the prescribed processes identified in this directory in accordance with (IAW) AFMAN , Management of Records, and dispose of them IAW the AF Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) found on the AF Portal link. Contact supporting records managers as required. (AFISRA) An Interim Change (IC) to this supplement will delineate all AFISRA Staff Office acquisition responsibilities. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Interim Change (IC) #4 incorporates two guidance memorandums providing direction on Development Planning and Product Support Manager. This change reflects organizational and authorities changes due to DTM Space Systems Acquisition Policy (SSAP) and previously approved Acquisition Improvement Plan guidance on System Requirement Documents (SRD). This change includes administrative changes to correct format issues and typographical errors.

4 4 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 (AFISRA) This document is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed. This supplement supersedes AFISRA Supplement to AFI , Determining Mission Capability and Supportability Requirements, and aligns AFISRA policy with AFI , Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management. Summary of changes include: additional clarification of AFISRA functional area(s) responsibilities in acquisition and sustainment life cycle management activities (Chapter 2); specific guidance on the AFISRA Materiel Fielding Process (Chapter 3); guidance for fielding a Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) or Proof of Concept (POC) to an AFISRA site (Chapter 3); addition of a Materiel Fielding Checklist for identifying the minimum requirements for fielding capabilities to AFISRA sites (Table 3.3); addition of the following attachments: Attachment 6, AFISRA Materiel Fielding Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Message Format; Attachment 7, AFISRA Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) Message Format; and, Attachment 8, AFISRA Proof of Concept (POC) Message Format. Chapter 1 ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT Purpose of AFI , Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management Applicability The Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Framework Figure 1.1. Integrated Life Cycle Management Framework The ILCM Tenets Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Framework Figure 1.2. Integrated Life Cycle Execution Framework (Acronyms in Atch 1) Acquisition and Sustainment Organizations Integrated Life Cycle Management Chain of Authority Chapter 2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Purpose Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) will: DELETED Deputy Assistant Secretary, Contracting (SAF/AQC) will: Deputy Assistant Secretary (Science, Technology and Engineering), (SAF/AQR) will: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Integration (SAF/AQX) will: SAF/AQ Capability Directors (CD) will: Assistant Secretary of the AF, Financial Management and Comptroller (SAF/FM) will: Deputy Under Secretary of the AF for International Affairs (SAF/IA) will: Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations, Environment and Logistics (SAF/IE) will: DELETED

5 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST HQ AF, Director of Test and Evaluation (AF/TE) will: DCS, Manpower and Personnel (AF/A1) will: DCS, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AF/A2) will: DCS, Operations, Plans and Requirements (HQ AF/A3/5) will: DCS, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (HQ AF/A4/7) will: HQ AF, Strategic Plans and Programs (HQ AF/A8) will: Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer (CIO) (SAF/XC and AF/A6) will: Commander, AF Materiel Command (AFMC/CC) will: Commander, AF Research Laboratory (AFRL/CC) will: Commander, AF Space Command (AFSPC/CC) will: Operational Commands and Field Operating Agencies (FOA) Commander, Air Education and Training Command (AETC/CC) will: Commander, AF Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC/CC) will: AF Human Systems Integration Office (AFHSIO) will: Program Executive Officers (PEO) will: Program Executive Officer, Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM) will: Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) will: Program Managers (PM), including System Program Managers (SPM), will: Acquisition Centers of Excellence (ACE) will: HQ AF, Chief of Safety (AF/SE) will: HQ AF, A (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Staff Officers (Added-AFISRA) Air Force Cryptologic Office (AFCO) Staff Officers (AFISRA/Detachment 1) will: (Added-AFISRA) Commanders, AFISRA Centers, Wings, and Groups (as applicable) will: (Added-AFISRA) Commanders, AFISRA Field Organizations will: Chapter 3 ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE READINESS 56 Section 3A Acquisition and Sustainment Processes Acquisition and Sustainment Processes Overview Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Decisions, Certifications, and Reviews Capability Based Requirements Development

6 6 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Mission Assignment Evolutionary Acquisition (EA) Figure 3.1. Evolutionary Acquisition Approach Management of System of Systems (SoS)/Family of System (FoS) Air Force Review Boards (AFRB)/Acquisition Strategy Panels (ASP) Coordination of Requirements Document Used in Conjunction with RFP Design Reviews (Preliminary Design Review (PDR)/Critical Design Review (CDR)) Reports and Assessments Program Determination, Delegation, and Air Force Acquisition Master List (AML) Sustainment Program Master List (SPML) Request for Reclassification of Acquisition Programs Categorization Life Cycle Acquisition and Sustainment Reporting Life Cycle Expectation Management Total Ownership Costs (TOC) Risk-Based Program Management and Decision Making Earned Value Management (EVM) Performance Based Contracting Selection of Contractors for Subsystems and Components New Start Notification Modification Management Program Terminations Materiel Fielding Table 3.3. (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Materiel Fielding Checklist Post Implementation Review (PIR) System/Program Transfer Portfolio Transfer Urgent Operational Needs Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process Joint Capability Technology Demonstration Intelligence Supportability Requirements Independent Assessments Nuclear Weapon Related Acquisition Section 3B Acquisition Programmatic Requirements 88

7 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Table Acquisition Programmatic Requirements Overview Documentation Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Courses of Action (COA) Program Management Directive (PMD) Product Support Considerations and Strategic Sourcing Determination Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) The Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Program Management Agreement (PMA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Strategy Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Integrated Master Plans (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS) Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis and Documentation Risk Management Plans Translation of MIL-STD-882D Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management Guide Matrix Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Contractor Incentives Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) Limitations Inherently Governmental Functions Determinations Commercial Item Purchase Buy American Act (BAA) Berry Amendment and 10 USC 2533b Compliance Leasing Serialized Item Management (SIM) Military Equipment Valuation (MEV) Government Cost Estimates Cost Realism Budget Stability Management Information Systems and Program Control Metrics

8 8 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) Use of Specifications and Standards Program Protection Planning Information Support Plans (ISP) Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning System Survivability Arms Control Compliance Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Security Assistance (SA) Management of AF Training Systems End Use Certificates Section 3C Life Cycle Systems Engineering Requirements Life Cycle Systems Engineering (SE) AF SE Management Responsibilities Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E)/Mission Assurance Human Systems Integration (HSI) Maintenance Engineering/Sustaining Engineering (ME/SE) Configuration Management (CM) Product and System Integrity Aircraft Information Program Software Engineering Value Engineering (VE) Systems Engineering in Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) System Compatibility and Interoperability Section 3D Sustainment Planning Requirements Product Support/Sustainment Planning Overview Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) Data Rights Engineering Data Technical Orders (TO) Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T)

9 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Contractor Logistics Support Industrial Base Constraints Support Equipment/Automated Test Systems (SE/ATS) Weapon System Support Program (WSSP) Air Force Global Logistics Support Center (AFGLSC) Depot Maintenance / Sustainment Cost Reporting (50/50) Public-Private Partnerships Table 3.2. Depot Maintenance Partnership Authorities Centralized Asset Management (CAM) Provisioning Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Figure 3.2. Performance Based Logistics Relationships Figure 3.3. PBL Levels Demilitarization, Disposal, Reclamation, and Migration Section 3E Networks and Information Integration Requirements Networks and Information Integration Requirements Overview Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Information Technology Systems Registration and Support of AF IT Portfolio Management Process Management of Defense Business Systems Directed Use of Joint Integrated Architectures The Global Information Grid (GIG) Integrated Architecture Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Interoperability of IT and NSS Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) Integrated Architecture Data Information Assurance (IA) Information Technology Lean and SISSU Processes Certification and Accreditation Spectrum Management Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Waivers/Notifications AF IT Standards Waiver Process AF Automated Computer Program Identification Number System

10 10 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Privacy Cyberspace Infrastructure Planning System (CIPS) Section Chapter 4 ACQUISITION OF SERVICES Purpose Acquisition of Services Objectives Acquisition of Services Applicability Acquisition of Services Responsibilities Table 4.1. Services Acquisitions within the US Air Force Services Requirements Determination and Approval: Table 4.2. Requirements for Services within the US Air Force Services Acquisition Review and Approval Data Collection AFPEO/CM A Initial Contract Performance Review Annual Execution Reviews Acquisition of Services Definitions Points of contact for additional information: Chapter 5 ACQUISITION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Purpose Acquisition Workforce Responsibilities and Authorities Acquisition Workforce Management AF Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP) Chapter 6 POLICY COORDINATION, REVIEW, AND WAIVERS Integrated Life Cycle Management Publication Coordination Waivers Changes Information Collection, Records, and Forms Forms Adopted and Prescribed Attachment 1 GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 188

11 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Attachment 2 TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, ARMED FORCES 237 Attachment 3 FORMAT FOR NEW START VALIDATION 241 Attachment 4 DESCRIPTIONS OF ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE CENTER (EDSC) CATEGORIES 242 Attachment 5 INDEX 243 Attachment 6 (AFISRA) AFISRA SYSTEM FIELDING INITIAL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY MESSAGE FORMAT 249 Attachment 7 (AFISRA) AFISRA QUICK REACTION CAPABILITY (QRC) MESSAGE FORMAT 251 Attachment 8 (AFISRA) AFISRA PROOF OF CONCEPT (POC) MESSAGE FORMAT 252

12 12 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Chapter 1 ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT 1.1. Purpose of AFI , Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management. The purpose of this instruction is to implement direction from the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) as outlined in Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/20-1, Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management. The primary mission of the Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Enterprise is to provide seamless governance, transparency and integration of all aspects of weapons systems acquisition and sustainment management. This instruction must be used in conjunction with Air Force Instruction (AFI) , Capabilities-Based Requirements Development, AFI , Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation, AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, and AFI , Logistics Strategic Planning Procedures, to provide an integrated framework for the implementation of ILCM Applicability. This instruction applies to the management of all programs identified on the Acquisition Master List (AML) and Sustainment Program Master List (SPML), space programs, designated weapon systems cited in AFPD 10-9, Lead Command Designation and Responsibilities for Weapon Systems, and systems, activities, and projects that support warfighter capability planning and validated needs. Note: Until updated and throughout this document, the AML previously known as the APML refer to the same list. All roles and responsibilities associated with the APML are transferred to the AML introduced in section Unless otherwise specified, for the purpose of this document, the term Program will be used to identify any program on the APML or SPML, space systems, designated product groups, and other specified system or subsystem activities including Special Access Programs unless otherwise excluded. Due to their unique nature requiring additional security measures, Special Access Programs shall follow guidance regarding reporting, coordination, and use of specified tools, systems, and databases only to the extent practicable and as coordinated with Assistant Secretary of the AF (Acquisition), Directorate of Special Programs (SAF/AQL) and approved by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Unless otherwise specified, for the purpose of this document, the term Program Manager (PM) will be synonymous with System Program Manager (SPM), or Product Group Manager (PGM) as applicable to a program Unless otherwise specified, this instruction applies to the management of space systems, except as amended by DoD guidance. MDAs retain the right to tailor guidance to fit the particular conditions of an individual program consistent with applicable laws and regulations The Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Framework. ILCM is the overarching system of concepts, methods, and practices used by the Air Force to effectively manage systems from need identification through final disposal and shall be applied to Air Force acquisition and sustainment activities. ILCM shall be composed of seamless and transparent governance, core and enabling processes to acquire and sustain systems, subsystems, end-items, and services to satisfy validated needs. The goals of ILCM are to recapitalize Air Force capabilities through maximum acquisition cycle time efficiency, provide agile support that will optimize fielded capabilities and the supply chain, minimize the logistics footprint, and reduce total ownership

13 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST cost. The ILCM framework as illustrated in Figure 1.1 consists of: 1) an ILCM Executive Forum; 2) enterprise and business system execution; and 3) program execution and support. The framework provides an overarching management structure that integrates across systems, portfolios, and management levels in order to effectively influence and execute life cycle decisions in response to capability shortfalls. The six ILCM tenets outlined below provide the governing management principles necessary for the execution of the ILCM Framework. These tenets as applied to the framework are primary contributors to satisfying the Air Force Strategic Objective Recapitalizing and modernizing our aging aircraft, satellites, and equipment to optimize the military utility of our systems to better meet 21 st Century challenges. (Air Force Strategic Plan, , page 7) Figure 1.1. Integrated Life Cycle Management Framework The ILCM Tenets. The six tenets of ILCM are life cycle planning and integration; expectation management; collaborative and continuous requirements management; life cycle systems engineering; technology planning and insertion; and continual, integrated testing. Enabling principles necessary for successful application of the ILCM tenets are listed below and detailed in AFPAM , Guide to Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management [when published] Life Cycle Planning and Integration. ILCM ensures the program is actively managed throughout its entire lifespan, from conception and requirements generation, to technology and product development and testing, and throughout manufacturing and field operations until the system or product is retired and disposed. Three major parallel management and execution structures support life cycle planning and integration: Capabilities Based Requirements Development, System Acquisition and Sustainment and Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation. This execution framework provides a roadmap for the ILCM stakeholders and process owners to use in the integrated management of programs across their entire life cycle Expectation Management. Expectation management establishes program credibility and accountability through formal, recurring communication among stakeholders and is the cornerstone of the ILCM process. Significant reasons to actively manage expectations are 1) developers, users, and sustainers often interpret requirements differently, 2) program changes occur throughout development and are not always documented which impacts cost, schedule,

14 14 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 performance, and risk which affect end-item deliverables, 3) different users may have different views of probability of success, and 4) expectations can drift apart over time through leadership/personnel changes Collaborative and Continuous Requirements Management. Collaborative requirements development requires the user, acquirer, enterprise architect, developer, tester, and sustainer to operate as one team. Continuous management is monitoring and controlling the weapon system requirements baseline throughout the program life cycle. While the user is responsible for identifying the required capability, this must be accomplished in a collaborative environment with all stakeholders in order to understand and communicate the art of the possible. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process identified in CJCSI , Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, is closely integrated with the acquisition process and exists to identify, develop, and validate defense-related requirements Life Cycle Systems Engineering. Life cycle systems engineering is the overarching process governing the transition from a stated capability need to an operationally effective and suitable system. Systems engineering addresses architecture, requirements development and management, design, technical management and control, and test and evaluation (T&E) / verification and validation (V&V). It is the integrating mechanism for balanced solutions. The systems engineering process begins early in concept definition and covers all efforts across all life cycle phases, to include sustainment and disposal Technology Planning and Insertion. Technology planning and insertion is the timely maturation and incorporation of relevant technology throughout the program life cycle to ensure an operationally effective and suitable system. Technology planning and the assessment of technology readiness levels include consideration of such factors as reliability, producibility, testability, sustainability and operational performance. Successful technology planning and insertion as part of program life cycle management results in higher fidelity time phased requirements with a more realistic schedule and improved cost estimates Continual, Integrated Testing. Continual, integrated testing structures T&E to reduce the time it takes to field effective and suitable systems by providing qualitative and quantitative information to decision makers throughout the program s life cycle. Integrated testing minimizes the distinction between contractor, developmental, and operational testing by implementing integrated testing techniques and objectives to the maximum extent possible. Key stakeholders share all information in open T&E databases, identify problems early, engage contractors to fix deficiencies sooner, and ensure systems are ready to enter dedicated operational testing and fielding with a high probability of success Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Framework. This section summarizes the key acquisition and sustainment activities that occur in each phase of the ILCM framework. A multifunctional collaborative effort between the requirements, acquisition and sustainment, and test communities is necessary for weapon system life cycle management; as illustrated in Figure 1.2. This section provides an overview of key acquisition and sustainment activities throughout the life cycle management phases. Details on key acquisition and sustainment activities can be found in the body of this document and other supporting documentation. For more information regarding requirements, test and evaluation, systems engineering and logistics activities, refer to AFI , Capabilities-Based Requirements Development, AFI , Capabilities Based

15 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Test and Evaluation, AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, and AFI , Logistics Strategic Planning Procedures. For more information regarding information technology management and compliance refer to the applicable 33 series documents describing information technology (IT) acquisition and Chief Information Officer (CIO) compliance requirements User Needs and Technology Opportunities. The purpose of this timeframe is to identify and validate mission needs and to examine promising technology concepts. Involvement of the acquisition and sustainment community, especially systems engineering subject matter experts, starts with participation in the requirements development process and pre-materiel solution analysis phase activities described in AFI , CJCSI Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, the JCIDS Manual, and CJCSI , Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology and National Security Systems. Key activities include conducting capabilities based assessments (CBA), identifying capability gaps and shortfalls, developing the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan, and the Identifying Capability Gaps and Shortfalls. The user, with support from the acquisition and sustainment community, identifies capability shortfalls or the need to develop a new technology that will enhance war fighting capability. The process used to identify shortfalls is governed by CJCSI , the JCIDS Manual, and AFI , Capabilities-Based Planning Technology Concepts. Promising technologies are identified from all foreign and domestic sources, including government laboratories and centers, academia, and the commercial sector. Initial science and technology investments support the maturation of concepts allowing for introduction of materiel solutions into the weapon system life cycle Development Planning (DP). DP is the materiel contribution to AF or AF-led capability planning. It considers the entire product/system life cycle (pre-concept to disposal) but brings its greatest leverage prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD). DP collaboratively identifies and develops concepts (prospective materiel solutions) in response to operational capability needs, and provides early acquisition involvement in support of the lead command to ensure initiation of high-confidence programs. DP performed in support of prioritized capability needs should generate alternative concepts with a range of performance and cost parameters, ensuring AF leadership is offered trade space for portfolio and risk management. Some DP is also performed proactively, in anticipation of future needs Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Guidance. The AoA Study Guidance, developed by the Lead Operational MAJCOM or other sponsoring office and supported by the Office of Aerospace Studies (OAS), describes how materiel alternative solutions will be analyzed during the Materiel Solution Analysis phase Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Development. Acquisition and sustainment personnel participate in the development of the requirements strategy through the requirements development High Performance Team (HPT) process. At the Requirements Strategy Review (RSR), the ICD sponsor must identify the proposed AF funding strategy for the Materiel Solution Analysis and Technology Development Phases.

16 16 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Figure 1.2. Integrated Life Cycle Execution Framework (Acronyms in Atch 1) Both the ICD and the AoA Study Guidance must be presented to the MDA for entry into the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. By this point in the process, acquisition and sustainment personnel should have a thorough understanding of the users desired capabilities, and users should have a realistic understanding of what is technically possible. The sustainment community, in collaboration with the user, needs to address reliability, availability and maintainability to ensure life cycle mission capability and supportability.

17 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST When the ICD is completed and validated, the user will forward a copy to the MDA and HQ AFMC (for non-space programs). The MDA, working with appropriate stakeholders, determines if there is sufficient information to proceed with a Materiel Development Decision (MDD) and entry into Materiel Solution Analysis Mission assignment usually takes place at this point, including identification of a PM who will have responsibility from issuance of the Materiel Development Decision until the effort is officially established as a program at Milestone (MS) B The MDA decision to begin Materiel Solution Analysis DOES NOT mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. The purpose of this phase is to assess potential materiel solutions and to satisfy the phase-specific entry criteria for the next program milestone designated by the MDA. This phase begins with the Materiel Development Decision. Entrance into this phase depends upon an approved ICD resulting from the analysis of current mission performance and an analysis of potential concepts. Activities during this phase are in preparation for a MS-A decision Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). AoAs document the rationale for identifying a preferred solution or solutions to the capability shortfalls. The MDA approves the AoA study guidance, but the operational Major Command (MAJCOMs) (or other sources) are responsible for AoA execution. The AoAs should clearly articulate performance, schedule, and cost expectations as well as initial risk assessment of the program to ensure expectations are known and agreed to up front Technology Development The Technology Development starts at MS-A when the MDA has approved the TDS. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology risk, determine the appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, demonstrate critical technology elements (CTE) on prototypes, and complete a preliminary design. Activities during this phase are in preparation for a MS-B decision Assessing Technology Readiness. Technology is required to be demonstrated in a relevant environment to be considered mature enough to use for product development after MS-B. The analysis to show this is documented in a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) DELETED Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The EMD starts after approval of MS-B. The purpose of the EMD is to develop an increment of capability; complete system integration; validate producibility and manufacturing processes; posture for life cycle sustainment; ensure affordability; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. Activities during these phases are in preparation for a MS-C decision Integrated System Design. Guided by the CDD and SEP, this effort defines system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces, completes hardware and software detailed design, reduces system-level risk and establishes product baselines for all configuration items. This effort culminates in the system-level Critical Design Review (CDR). Successful completion of the CDR ends Integrated System Design and

18 18 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 continues the EMD phase into System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration Final Depot Source of Repair (DSOR). An important outcome of the demonstration phase will be the generation of the final DSOR. A DSOR decision for all depot-level maintenance for hardware and software, with special attention to Title 10 USC 2464 (Core Capability) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50 Requirements), is essential to the life cycle sustainment strategy. DSOR decisions and programmed resources are required prior to MS-C for new depot capabilities Capability Production Document (CPD) Development. The CPD provides firm, measurable, and testable requirements necessary to support production and sustainment of an increment of capability. The ICD, AoA/ Courses of Action (COA), CDD, testing results, and critical design reviews guide CPD development Production and Deployment. The Production and Deployment starts after approval of MS-C. The purpose of the Production and Deployment phase is to demonstrate operational effectiveness and suitability and to achieve an operational capability. During this phase several key decisions and activities will take place in preparation for the Full Rate Production (FRP) decision and subsequent entry into the Operations and Support Phase Materiel Fielding. The materiel fielding process integrates asset production and support activities conducted by the program office with asset acceptance/beddown, deployment, operation, and sustainment planning activities conducted by the user. The PM leads this process, with significant support from the user and sustainment communities for field and depot support. The objective is to ensure an orderly transition of assets from the production line to the user s operating location(s) Post Implementation Review (PIR). The purpose of the PIR is to compare actual system performance to program expectations and mission realities based upon the operational environment and Concept of Operation (CONOPS). PIR activities may be accomplished in the context of typical program acquisition activities or system operational processes. The initial PIR is held after IOC but prior to Full Operational Capability (FOC) Full Sustainment. Full sustainment is achieved when all the requirements of the sustainment strategy are in place to satisfy the established mission requirements for full operational capability (FOC) of the fielded system in accordance with (IAW) the LCMP. The PM in collaboration with the Lead Command and AFMC documents the full sustainment criteria in the LCMP and/or Materiel Fielding Plan (MFP) Acquisition and Sustainment Organizations. Various organizations facilitate the acquisition and sustainment of weapon systems through their life cycle. Figure 1.3 identifies the relationships of primary Air Force organizations involved in ILCM acquisition and sustainment activities. While the acquisition and command lines of authority are distinct, they often reside simultaneously with the same individuals. It is the responsibility of each commander/director to ensure separate authority lines are kept clean and processes are streamlined. (NOTE: Figure 1.3 only indicates organizational relationships and is NOT a formal command or organization structure diagram.) 1.7. Integrated Life Cycle Management Chain of Authority. All Air Force (AF) programs shall have a clear and unambiguous governance chain of authority. The management structure

19 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST shall be streamlined and characterized by short, clearly defined lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability. Acquisition management responsibility for all Acquisition Category (ACAT) programs flows from the Service Acquisition Executive to the Program Executive Officer or Designated Acquisition Official to the accountable Program Manager. In no case shall there be more than two levels of review between the Program Manager and the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) in accordance with DODD , DODI , and AFPD 63-1/20-1. Organizational leaders that are between the accountable Program Manager and the MDA/Program Executive Officers (PEO)/Designated Acquisition Official (DAO) need to stay informed, but must not hinder direct and open access To support ILCM execution, all programs must establish clear lines of program execution authority within the management organizational structures (program execution and organizational command.) There are two primary programmatic execution chains in which the majority of AF programs are managed one for programs primarily in acquisition and one for programs primarily in sustainment as shown in Figure 1.4. As part of program planning, documentation and reporting, the specific lines of programmatic execution authority for each program shall be established and documented in the LCMP Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The MDA is the DODD designated individual with overall responsibility for a program. The MDA shall have the authority to approve entry of a program into the next phase of the life cycle process, shall certify MS criteria (for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP)), and shall be accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to higher authority, including Congressional reporting. The MDA shall ensure that programs are structured to 1) provide the needed capability to the warfighter in the shortest practical time, 2) balance risk, 3) ensure affordability and supportability, and 4) provide adequate information for decision making. In order to provide the appropriate level of command review, the MDA shall be the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) or be a general officer (GO) or member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) with qualifications equivalent to those outlined for a PEO in the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) and Chapter 5 of this instruction Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The MDA is the DODD designated individual with overall responsibility for a program. The MDA shall have the authority to approve entry of a program into the next phase of the life cycle process and shall be accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to higher authority, including Congressional reporting. The MDA shall ensure that programs are structured to 1) provide the needed capability to the warfighter in the shortest practical time, 2) balance risk, 3) ensure affordability and supportability, and 4) provide adequate information for decision making. In order to provide the appropriate level of command review, the MDA shall be the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) or be a general officer (GO) or member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) with qualifications equivalent to those outlined for a PEO in the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) and Chapter 5 of this instruction The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) shall act as the MDA and have overall authority and responsibility for the management of all Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs identified as Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID and ACAT IAM.

20 20 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The SAE shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of AF acquisition programs, including all programs and pre-milestone B (MS B) activities The SAE shall act as the MDA for programs identified as ACAT IC, ACAT IAC and ACAT II or special interest programs At the SAE s discretion, MDA responsibilities for ACAT II and ACAT III programs may be delegated to a Program Executive Officer (PEO). The PEO may further delegate MDA responsibilities for ACAT III programs as indicated in Paragraph below The Commander, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC/CC) shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of non-space programs identified on the SPML. The Commander, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC/CC) shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of space sustainment activities Program Executive Officers (PEO), Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO), and Air Logistic Centers Commanders (ALC/CC) are responsible for total life cycle management of their assigned portfolios and shall ensure collaboration across the ILCM framework. They are responsible for, and have authority to accomplish assigned portfolio/program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet warfighters operational needs Program Executive Officers (PEO) shall provide dedicated executive program management of assigned, delegated programs The PEO shall not have other command responsibilities unless waived by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L). The PEO may be dual-hatted as a product center commander when the provisions of DODI , Paragraph E10.3.c are waived by USD (AT&L). However, the primary responsibility of a dual-hatted product center commander shall remain PEO program execution management All personnel assigned as a PEO shall meet the Key Leadership Position (KLP) qualifications and tenure requirements identified in Chapter 5 of this instruction PEOs may delegate ACAT III MDA responsibilities to an appropriately qualified Deputy for Acquisition. PEOs shall notify the AFMC/CC or AFSPC/CC and the SAE of all such delegations. The SAE shall have the authority to rescind such delegations. No further delegation is allowed Unless waived or specifically directed by the SAE, the delegated MDAs shall comply with the same PEO position requirements, and execute the same authorities and responsibilities of a MDA Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) shall provide dedicated executive program management of assigned, non-space, delegated ACAT II and ACAT III programs at ALCs expending investment dollars DAOs shall have overall responsibility for a program as MDA and perform the associated responsibilities for an MDA. Executive management and MDA responsibilities for the DAO are under SAE oversight All personnel assigned as a DAO shall meet the DAWIA requirements of a PEO including Key Leadership Position (KLP) qualifications and tenure requirements identified in Chapter 5 of this instruction DAOs selection is approved by the SAE in coordination with AFMC/CC. The ALC/CC will be designated as the DAO if the ALC/CC meets the DAWIA requirements of a PEO. If the ALC/CC does not meet the DAWIA PEO position qualification requirements, the SAE will confer with AFMC/CC and determine if the DAO authorities/responsibilities for that

21 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST ALC should be delegated to an appropriate senior officer or civilian at the ALC who meets the DAWIA requirements of a PEO, or transferred to the appropriate product center PEO(s). Under exceptional conditions, the SAE will consider a waiver to the DAWIA requirements All programs on the APML and SPML, space systems, and AFPD 10-9, Lead Command Designation and Responsibilities for Weapon Systems, designated weapon systems shall be assigned only one program manager (SPM or PM) as defined in AFPD 63-1/ All ACAT programs shall be assigned to a PEO or DAO Each weapon system designated in AFPD 10-9 shall be assigned to a SPM located at a product center or logistics center. Other systems not designated as AFPD 10-9 weapon systems may have a SPM at the discretion of the SAE, AFSPC/CC or AFMC/CC Programs on the APML or SPML and space programs that are not assigned an SPM will be assigned a PM PMs for programs on the APML or SPML and space programs which directly support a system managed by an SPM shall support and take guidance from the SPM to meet overall system and Air Force objectives System Program Manager/Program Manager (SPM/PM). The SPM or PM is the DODD designated individual with the responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet the user s operational needs. ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II SPMs and PMs shall be chartered by the SAE and the PEO. Delegated ACAT II and III SPMs or PMs shall be chartered by the PEO or DAO. Additional guidance and examples of PM charters can be found in AFPAM The SPM or PM shall be accountable for credible cost, schedule, and performance reporting to the MDA and have total life cycle management responsibilities for and authority to accomplish objectives as chartered. The single, accountable SPM or PM of record should be clearly identified in data reporting systems such as the System Metrics and Reporting Tool (SMART) The SPM or PM shall have an ILCM reporting chain of command based on Figure 1.4. The chain shall be documented in the LCMP at time of program initiation and updated as required Product Group Manager (PGM). The PGM is assigned when directed through a Headquarters Air Force (HAF) issuance or at the discretion of the AFMC/CC or AFSPC/CC for specified product groups. PGMs shall have overall management responsibilities of specified product groups and support overall AF, system, and program objectives as managed by a SPM or PM Staff Organizations. Staffs at all levels exist to advise ILCM leadership/management and assist them with their responsibilities. Councils, committees, advisory groups, panels, and staffs provide advice and recommendations to the PM, PGM, SPM, DAO, PEO, MDA, SAE and/or DAE who are accountable for the overall program results. These staff elements will provide objective inputs to the program decision process but will not exercise decision-making authority on programmatic matters Functional Support. The PM leads the program organization in executing the mission. Each functional representative within the program, irrespective of location or

22 22 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 whether that person supports the program on a full-time or part-time basis, should report to and take program direction through the PM. Functional staffs external to the program office are not accountable for program execution; they are responsible for providing trained human resources and advice to the PM. When applicable, the PM shall include the following positions when documenting the execution chain of authority. Other functional positions may be included at the PM s discretion Product Support Manager (PSM). The PSM is an individual with responsibility to lead the development, implementation, and top-level integration and management of all sources of support to meet Warfighter sustainment and readiness requirements. The PSM develops and implements a comprehensive product support strategy for each applicable program. The PSM reports directly to, and is accountable to, the PM for the execution of all product support requirements within the PM s scope of responsibilities. The PSM has the responsibility to interface directly with lead and supporting commands logistics, installation, and mission support functional authorities to ensure execution of readiness requirements Product Support Integrator (PSI). The PSI replaces System Support Manager or System Sustainment Manager (SSM). The PSI is an entity within the Federal Government or outside the Federal Government charged with integrating all sources of product support, both private and public, defined within the scope of a product support arrangement. The PSI provides functional support to the PSM Product Support Provider (PSP). The PSP is an entity that provides product support functions. The term includes an entity within the Department of Defense, an entity within the private sector, or a partnership between such entities Development System Manager (DSM). The DSM is an individual with functional responsibility for the development portion of a system s life cycle and in support of a PM Chief/Lead Engineer. The Chief/Lead Engineer is the PM s designated technical authority in the disciplined execution of the Systems Engineering (SE) process, including development of the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). The Chief/Lead Engineer is responsible to the PM to establish, implement, manage, and control SE activities necessary to develop and field robust products and systems that exhibit attributes of system security, Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E), and Mission Assurance Other Functional Support. Other functional support consists of individuals performing program execution activities in support of a PM. This includes, but is not limited to, engineering, financial management, contracting, legal review and analysis, logistics, sustainment, intelligence, test, and project management In all programs, supported and supporting command relationships will be developed to best facilitate management of each weapon system at all points in the life cycle.

23 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST PSM Assignment. AFMC and AFSPC shall accomplish mission assignment to include the establishment of the PSM. PSM mission assignment shall require the following: A PSM shall be established for all Acquisition Category (ACAT) I, ACAT II programs, and AFPD 10-9 weapon systems The PSM shall be assigned simultaneously with the PM and be co-located with the PM, unless otherwise specified in this document The PSM shall be filled by a properly qualified member of the Armed Forces or full time civilian employee of the Department of Defense The PSM shall be designated a Key Leadership Position (KLP) for all ACAT I programs and Critical Acquisition Position (CAP) for all ACAT II programs The PSM CAP and KLP positions shall be designated by acquisition coding in the manpower and personnel systems of record Personnel assigned to the PSM position for ACAT I and II programs and AFPD 10-9 weapon systems must meet the Life Cycle Logistics Level III requirements within the prescribed time frame, IAW DoDI For a weapon system in sustainment, the PM may be dual-hatted as the weapon system PSM if approved by AFMC or AFSPC. Additionally, a dual-hatted PM/PSM for a weapon system in sustainment may serve as the PSM for ACAT modifications if jointly approved by AFMC or AFSPC, and the Program Executive Officer (PEO)/Designated Acquisition Official (DAO) For ACAT III programs, the PM may accomplish product support functions of the PSM To support the standup of product support functions, the PSM may transfer to a logistics center at a predetermined point in the program life cycle. The transfer point shall be documented in the Acquisition Strategy/Life Cycle Management Plan (AS/LCMP) and/or Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). Specific details should be included in the Transfer Support Plan The PEO/DAO, in consultation with AFMC/A4 or AFSPC/A4 and mission assignment functional (AFMC/A8/9 or AFSPC/A8/9), shall determine when the PSM shall be dedicated and exclusive to a program, assigned to multiple programs or co-located with the program manager. For ACAT ID/IC and nondelegated ACAT IIs, notification must be made to the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) if the PSM is not dedicated and exclusive or co-located. MAIS programs do not require SAE notification For Joint MDAPs where the PSM is not an AF position, an AF Service PSM position shall be established to support the MDAP PSM. In this case, the Service PSM need not be co-located with the PM or program office. The Service PSM shall report directly to the AF organization assigned responsibility for supporting the Joint Program Office.

24 24 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Chapter 2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1. Purpose. This chapter defines the roles and responsibilities for organizations responsible for managing and executing the acquisition and sustainment life cycle. Additional complementary functional and organizational roles and the details to execute the roles and responsibilities may be found throughout this document, in AFI , AFI , AFI , AFI , and other publications referenced in Attachment 1. For more information regarding information technology management and compliance refer to the applicable 33 series documents describing IT acquisition and CIO compliance requirements Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) will: Serve as the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) as delegated for AF programs and execute responsibilities as the senior corporate operating official for acquisition. Execute SAE responsibilities outlined in the DOD 5000-series for execution of AF acquisitions. For purposes of defining SAE responsibilities, this includes life cycle acquisition of systems and services processes from pre-milestone A to weapon system retirement. This includes research, development, test, evaluation, production, and delivery of new systems, or modifications to existing systems. Management responsibility flows directly, without intervention, from the SAE and Milestone Decision Authority to the Program Executive Officers (PEOs)/Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) to the System Program Managers (SPMs) Serve and execute the responsibilities as the AF Senior Procurement Executive overseeing all AF acquisition activities Provide direction for acquisition transformation across the AF Approve programs for listing on the Acquisition Program Master List (APML) Approve the selection of personnel to fill Key Leadership Positions (KLP) including Program Executive Officers (PEO) Program Managers (PM), and Deputy Program Managers for acquisition category (ACAT) I, and ACAT IA programs, and Program Managers for ACAT II and selected programs Approve, in coordination with the AFMC/CC, the selection of nominated Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) Appoint all PEOs/DAOs, ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II PMs Hold PEOs accountable for program execution and implementation of transformation initiatives within their programs Chair an annual program execution review with PEOs/DAOs and MAJCOM commanders Manage and assess program health using an automated toolset such as the System Metrics and Reporting Tool (SMART).

25 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Sign ACAT ID and ACAT IAM Acquisition Program Baselines (APBs) and forward them for Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) approval Sign and approve initial APBs and any subsequent changes constituting a re-baseline for all non-space ACAT IC, ACAT IAC, non-delegated ACAT II, and selected programs. Ensure that MDAs for delegated ACAT II and ACAT III programs approve initial APBs as well as re-baselined documents Chair Acquisition Strategy Panels (ASP) for related ACAT I, ACAT IA, nondelegated ACAT II, and selected programs Chair Air Force Review Boards (AFRB) for related ACAT I, ACAT IA, nondelegated ACAT II, and selected programs Manage the Science and Technology (S&T) Program and its budget. Control the program s approved fiscal resources Serve as Functional Authority for the Acquisition Program Management, Contracting, Scientist and Engineer career fields Plan and implement non-developmental acquisition and cooperative research and development with other nations; set policy for those activities Perform as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for ACAT I, ACAT IA, and selected programs unless otherwise directed by the SECAF Approve the acquisition plans and justification and approvals as established in the AF Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Notify the SECAF that a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) has exceeded its original baseline or current baseline unit cost threshold, to facilitate SECAF congressional notification Notify the defense committees of Major Automated Information System (MAIS) significant program changes Report all MDAP and MAIS APB deviations to the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) Serve as acceptance authority for program Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) risks classified High as defined by the government and industry in accordance with Military-Standard (MIL-STD)-882D, DOD Standard Practice for System Safety. The user representative shall be part of this process throughout the life cycle and shall provide formal concurrence prior to all high risk acceptance decisions Approve all Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMP) for all ACAT I, IA, II and other programs on Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) T&E Oversight List, and forward to Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) and Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation (DDT&E). Sign and approve all other TEMPs when designated as the MDA.

26 26 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Certify systems ready for dedicated operational testing according to AFMAN , Certification of System Readiness for Dedicated Operational Test and Evaluation. This responsibility can be delegated as appropriate Recommend candidate systems to OSD/DOT&E for compliance with live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) legislation. Approve agreed-upon LFT&E programs and allocate AF resources required to accomplish LFT&E plans. Approve and forward required LFT&E documentation and waivers (if appropriate) to OSD/DOT&E Support system survivability requirements policy and direct the research, development, and acquisition of survivable systems Chair the Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Executive Forum Assign a Chief for the ILCM Forum Secretariat Establish a Configuration Steering Board (CSB) with broad executive membership including senior representatives from USD (AT&L) and the Joint Staff Establish policy and provide Component oversight for AF acquisition workforce management and professional development Appoint the AF Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM) to develop, review, and coordinate policy regarding the AF acquisition workforce, including both organic (AF civilians and military) and contracted resources and manage the execution and oversight of the Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP) on behalf of the SAE, both for non-space and space programs Designate the Air Force Office for Primary Responsibility (OPR) for Anti-Tamper Planning. SAF/AQL is currently the OPR and Executive Agent for Anti-Tamper Planning Exercise additional Acquisition of Services roles as identified in Chapter 4 of this document As MDA, approve the Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) for ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II programs Support Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) AF enterprise assessments and planning. Ensure implementation across non-space acquisition programs for compliance with Core and 50/50 requirements Review the Concept Characterization and Technical Description (CCTD) for each concept in Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plans for potential and designated ACAT I and IA programs in terms of its technical pedigree (i.e., the process by which it was developed and matured). Recommend only those concepts with sufficient evidence of robust systems thinking and technical planning for consideration in the AoA. This activity can be delegated to SAF/AQR With the AFMC/CC or AFSPC/CC, certify to the SECAF the requirements as described in the CDD for ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II programs can be translated for evaluation in a source selection in a clear and unambiguous way; are prioritized (if appropriate); and are organized into feasible increments of capability. The certification will occur concurrent with document presentation to the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC).

27 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Appoint the Air Force Review Board (AFRB) process owner and secretariat. The Air Force Office of Program Management and Acquisition Excellence (AF PM&AE) is currently the AFRB process owner and secretariat Appoint the SAE-level ASP process owner and secretariat for all ACAT I/IA and non-delegated ACAT II programs. AF PM&AE is currently the process owner and secretariat for all ACAT I/IA and non-delegated ACAT II programs DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED Deputy Assistant Secretary, Contracting (SAF/AQC) will: Exercise and further delegate (1) the authority to enter into, approve, terminate, and take all appropriate actions with respect to contracts and agreements (grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions), and (2) the authority to issue, modify, or rescind Air Force contracting regulations under the system of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Provide contracting technical support to all AF MAJCOMS, PEOs, Direct Reporting Units (DRU), and Field Operating Agencies (FOA) in the execution of their acquisition programs, privatization, competitive sourcing, service, and support efforts. This includes review of program specific acquisition strategy and implementation decisions.

28 28 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Provide a single entry point for reviewing, processing, facilitating, and acquiring contract-related acquisition documents requiring Secretariat-level approval such as Justification and Approvals (J&A), Determination and Findings (D&F), source selection plans, waivers, deviations, lease arrangements, indemnification requests, and associated legal/business arrangements Provide advice in the execution of contractual and other related actions Manage AF Industrial Labor Relations activities, including contractor work stoppages and the application of Federal labor statutes Serve as the AF Competition Advocate General (reference AFFARS , Competition Advocates Requirement) Provide strategic sourcing/commodity council advice and support contracting efforts related to strategic sourcing/commodity councils (reference AFFARS , Air Force Procedures for Commodity Councils) Deputy Assistant Secretary (Science, Technology and Engineering), (SAF/AQR) will: Serve as AF lead for Systems Engineering (SE) policy, guidance, and oversight. This includes policy and guidance for software engineering activities, and for Development Planning (DP) Support Requirements Strategy Reviews (RSRs) and High Performance Teams (HPTs) as requested Serve as final approval authority for system-related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation as designated by the SAE Review and approve space and non-space SEPs for the SAE as delegated Review proposed Technology Development Strategy (TDS) for MDAP programs prior to Milestone (MS) A and provide an assessment of technology risks to the SAE one month prior to milestone review Serve as AF lead for Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA), Program Support Review (PSR), and Technology Readiness Assessments (TRA) policy, guidance, and oversight Direct and support TRAs for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) and other DAE/SAE programs to support MS B and C decisions. Appoint independent review panels to conduct program TRAs to ensure an objective assessment. Review and endorse the completed TRAs to the SAE or DUSD(S&T), as appropriate, for DAE/SAE programs no later than one month prior to the milestone review. Endorse the completed TRAs to the SAE for SAE programs no later than one month prior to the milestone review. Transmit endorsements for ACAT ID and other DAE program TRAs through the SAE to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology (DUSD(S&T)) Direct and endorse MRAs required for DAE and SAE programs Chair Air Force Program Support Reviews (AF PSR) for ACAT IC, ACAT IAC, non-delegated ACAT II, and selected programs. Support OSD-chaired Program Support Reviews (PSRs) for ACAT ID and IAM programs. Plan and coordinate PSRs with other

29 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Air Force-led technical reviews and processes (e.g., Technology Readiness Assessment, Systems Engineering Plan reviews, technical risk assessments, and assessments of manufacturing readiness) to support Air Force Review Boards Serve as the focal point for the use of non-information Technology (IT)/National Security System (NSS) standards, to include materiel International Standardization Agreements (ISAs) intended for use in acquisition Serve as the SAE representative on the OSD Systems and Software Engineering Forum Serve as Air Force focal point for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) to include the Air Force JCTD selection process and Air Force JCTD policy and oversight Provide independent technical advice to the SAE for program reviews (e.g., Air Force Review Boards, Configuration Steering Boards, Acquisition Strategy Panels, and PEO portfolio reviews) Provide systems engineering advice and support to PEOs, DAOs, and PMs in the execution of DAE and SAE programs Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Integration (SAF/AQX) will: Lead, integrate, change, implement, and set acquisition policy and processes across the ILCM Enterprise to facilitate rapid delivery of intended capability, support, and/or services to the user Ensure SECAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), or SAF/AQ directed ILCM acquisition policies, directives, and initiatives and other functional policies as requested are communicated to the field Serve as the AF lead for acquisition program reporting policy, guidance and oversight. This includes but is not limited to Selected Acquisition Reports, Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Annual Reports, APB breach reporting, MDAP (Nunn/McCurdy) / MAIS Congressional APB breach reporting, MAIS Quarterly Reports, Defense Acquisition Executive Summary and the Monthly Acquisition Reports Chair the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Panel responsible for programming Science and Technology (S&T), T&E infrastructure, and Defense-wide support activities Represent SAF/AQ on the AF Board and Group; serve as focal point for SAF/AQ participation in the Defense Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process Recommend a MDA to SAF/AQ prior to the Materiel Development Decision point Authorize, via issuance of Program Authorization documents, execution-year adjustments to program funding, to include release/withhold of funds, below-threshold reprogramming actions, and subprogram level funding realignments. Coordinate on all investment New Start and Above Threshold Reprogramming actions prior to submittal to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management) (SAF/FM) and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Legislative Liaison) (SAF/LL).

30 30 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Lead acquisition professional development efforts, including the direction, coordination, and review of actions mandated by the DAWIA and associated DOD Directives. Serve as AF Liaison to OSD and to the President, Defense Acquisition University (DAU), on behalf of the SAE for non-space, the SAE for space and all AF acquisition, technology and logistics career field managers covered by DAWIA Develop and integrate policy regarding the AF acquisition workforce, including both organic (AF civilians and military) and contracted resources Serve as the focal point for AF Earned Value Management (EVM) policy and guidance and the EVM focal point representative to OSD DELETED DELETED Develop and maintain the non-space APML Collaborate with AF A4/7 Program Element Monitors on budgeting and execution of funds for investment equipment and vehicles SAF/AQ Capability Directors (CD) will: Identify and task SAF/AQ organizations to participate with AF/A5R in Requirements Strategy Reviews (RSR), High Performance Teams (HPT), and other early requirements and acquisition activities Support and provide resources for MRAs, PSRs, and TRAs Serve as focal point for staffing and coordination of acquisition program documentation at the Air Staff Initiate, review, and staff for coordination New Start packages (Letters of Notification for New Starts under prior approval thresholds, and DD Form , Reprogramming Action Form, prior-approval packages for New Starts exceeding thresholds) Generate, staff for coordination, and update as required Program Management Directive (PMD) development Serve as AF interface with OSD for non-space ACAT ID and ACAT IAM programs Communicate key non-space program acquisition issues to Congress Review requests for execution-year funding adjustments and forward to SAF/AQX for approval Provide support to the AF corporate budget process Support the JCIDS process through active collaboration in HPTs and Requirements Strategy Reviews RSRs. Support Combat Capability Documents (CCD), Concept Analyses, AoA Study Plan development and approval, Joint Staff Functional Capabilities Board (FCB) Reviews and supporting analyses. Review and coordinate on applicable JCIDS documents via the Information and Resource Support System (IRSS) process to provide early acquisition involvement in the requirements process in order to gain understanding and communicate the limits of what is possible.

31 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure that assigned Program Element Monitors (PEMs) understand their role as the primary focal point for communicating their program s requirements, funding, health, status and impact to the fight through constant interaction with the MAJCOM(s), the Program Office (or depot), Congressional Staffers, the appropriate offices within OSD, their counterparts in requirements (A5) and sustainment (A4), and others with a stake or interest in their assigned program Assistant Secretary of the AF, Financial Management and Comptroller (SAF/FM) will: Develop and provide financial policy Develop Business Case Analysis (BCA) policy, procedures and guidance as outlined in AFI , Economic Analysis (and AFI , Business Case Analysis, when published) Support SAF/AQX in developing AF EVM policy and guidance Deputy Under Secretary of the AF for International Affairs (SAF/IA) will: Provide projected Security Assistance (SA) and International Armaments Cooperation (IAC) requirements related data to AFMC for analysis and planning Develop/provide policy for implementation of SA requirements that are to be executed by AF organizations Provide the most current SA requirements to appropriate PMs to support development of annual migration plans Support PMs in their preparation and execution of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) strategies Manage the Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) program to provide foreign technologies and systems that PMs can acquire to meet AF requirements Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations, Environment and Logistics (SAF/IE) will: Provide strategic logistics oversight for life cycle support; develop strategic level logistics, installations, and environmental policy for life cycle support; and provide vertical and horizontal integration of ILCM policies to provide for standardization and compliance mechanisms across the Enterprise. Ensure functional policies as requested are communicated to the field Serve as a Member of the ILCM Executive Forum. Assign a representative to the ILCM Executive Forum Secretariat Plan and assess Air Force enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements. Document results and provide to the ILCM Executive Forum annually In collaboration with AF A4/7, AFMC/A4, and AFSPC/A4, assess the health of organic product support workforce competencies Validate compliance of the Air Force enterprise with Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) and act as the Air Force single focal point for reporting final

32 32 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Service 50/50 and Core workload distribution figures to other DOD agencies. Sign and forward the 50/50 report and Core report to the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Develop Air Force policy and guidance related to 50/50 depot-level maintenance management to include the establishment of the management reserve threshold DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED HQ AF, Director of Test and Evaluation (AF/TE) will: Develop AF T&E policy designed to implement integrated testing and oversee AF T&E programs according to AFI , Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation Act as the final T&E review authority and signatory for TEMPs requiring SAE approval; review other TEMPs as requested Adjudicate T&E issues between MAJCOMs, operational test agencies, the Services, OSD, and Congress Support integrated life cycle management efforts to acquire and sustain operationally effective, suitable, safe, and survivable systems Oversee the AF test infrastructure by ensuring adequate T&E facilities, resources, and expertise are available to support system life cycle T&E activities Provide members to participate in the development of COAs and requirements documents as required Oversee the testing and evaluation of system survivability Review the requirement for an End Use Certificate (EUC) identified by the test centers and request SAF/AQ approval Participate as an Advisor in the ILCM Executive Forum when test related issues are addressed DCS, Manpower and Personnel (AF/A1) will: Determine and advise PMs of inherently governmental and/or military essentiality of function before competitive sourcing actions are initiated DCS, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AF/A2) will:

33 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Develop intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) policy to support acquisition and sustainment life cycle management Review acquisition documents as required for ISR applicability and sufficiency; resolve disagreements between AF reviewers on intelligence content issues Provide guidance on architectures, ISR production and other ISR matters, as applicable to ISR support to acquisition Ensure ISR production processes are responsive to acquisition customers, according to AFI , Intelligence Production and Applications and AFI , Geospatial Information and Services Manage ISR threat support to AF programs, and AF-led, multi-service programs according to Department Intelligence Analysis Program and other national-level guidelines DCS, Operations, Plans and Requirements (HQ AF/A3/5) will: Provide oversight for AF planning and requirements development processes and procedures Collaboratively work with the acquirer, tester, sustainer and other key stakeholders in developing operational capabilities requirements documents and the associated COA Provide approved operational capabilities requirements documents to SAF/AQX, AFMC and other stakeholders to support COA development, materiel development decisions, and milestone decisions Support Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) and PMD development as requested Support SAF/AQ, SAF/US, and MDA decisions, program reviews, and design reviews as requested Review LCMPs as required or requested Advocate weapon system requirements during the PPBE process Implement system survivability requirements policy in accordance with CJCS 3170 Series documents Ensure operational capability requirements documents address systems survivability Validate operational issues concerning system survivability and validate operational survivability requirements Notify SAF/AQX of a planned RSR Participate as an Advisor in the ILCM Executive Forum when issues regarding phasing or adjustments to requirements are addressed DCS, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (HQ AF/A4/7) will: Develop policy and issue AF implementation guidance for logistics support capabilities to ensure weapon system readiness for the user consistent with statutes, executive orders, and DOD issuances. Ensure functional policies as requested are communicated to the field.

34 34 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Advocate logistics requirements to corporate AF, OSD, and Congressional entities Serve as a Member of the ILCM Executive Forum. Assign a representative to the ILCM Executive Forum Secretariat Assess sustainment enterprise capabilities and performance outcomes in support of AF mission and warfighting needs Develop and support logistics information gathering and data monitoring systems to support measurement of logistics performance and supportability status of weapon systems Ensure Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) concepts and functions are developed and implemented as applicable Support activities throughout a system s life cycle to ensure logistics and sustainment issues are addressed for long-term system viability Develop and implement Serialized Item Management (SIM) concepts and functions Support Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) Air Force enterprise assessments and planning HQ AF, Strategic Plans and Programs (HQ AF/A8) will: Review LCMPs as required or requested to ensure that they accurately reflect programmed force levels Provide projected force structure programming changes to using commands and AFMC Provide the most current force structure/management data to the appropriate PMs to support development of annual migration plans Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer (CIO) (SAF/XC and AF/A6) will: Develop and sustain the Air Force Information Assurance (IA) program according to AFPD 33-2, Information Assurance (IA) Program Establish the Air Force provisioned portion of the Global Information Grid (AF- GIG) acceptable baseline risk level and IA controls, and provide guidance to implementing organizations to mitigate threats commensurate with that risk level Designate a Senior Information Assurance Official (SIAO) to provide oversight and responsibility for the AF IA policy and procedures. The SIAO will oversee IA requirements planning, programming, budgeting, and execution in the AF budget process and advocate for IA funding with the OSD. The SIAO will function as the AF IA Certifying Authority for all IT and applicable National Security System certification and accreditation and delegate this authority as appropriate. The SIAO will oversee development of the Air Force Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) template used to assist the PM in applying IA by identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and monitoring the progress of corrective efforts for security weaknesses Establish and enforce processes, roles, and responsibilities for IA certification and accreditation. Review and approve certification and accreditation thresholds and milestones.

35 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The SIAO will carry out Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) related CIO responsibilities Create the enterprise level architecture for the Air Force Review and ensure requirements and planning documents address system architectures consistent with the IA enterprise architecture Ensure AF spectrum certification compliance for all applicable systems that require spectrum access and allocation Establish policy for modeling and simulation (M&S) efforts to include those performed in support of capabilities based requirements development and simulation based activities throughout the system life cycle Ensure effective and efficient IT management as required by Congressional statutory and DOD regulatory requirements (e.g., the Clinger-Cohen Act and DOD series) Provide AF policy and guidance on ensuring approved IA strategies are addressed in capabilities based requirements development Serve as AF lead for implementation of net-centric operations through policies When SAF/XC is the designated PEM, provide for program oversight and resource allocation Support requirements strategy development and participate in HPTs to ensure Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) requirements are architecture-based, net-centric compliant, and horizontally integrated Provide IT life cycle management expertise Develop policy and guidance for the Security, Interoperability, Supportability, Sustainability, and Usability (SISSU) and IT Lean processes Review LCMPs and ISPs as required or requested Establish policy to achieve and maintain operational electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) for all systems, equipment, and wireless devices that utilize the electromagnetic spectrum and are developed, acquired, and operated by the AF Review JCIDS documents (e.g., ICD, CDD, CPD, and supporting architectures) and Information Support Plans (ISP) to ensure planned implementation of the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) is sound. This includes a review of the architecture, alignment with DOD s Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model, review of the IA plan, and review of the Key Interface Profiles in accordance with CJCSI , Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology and National Security Systems Participate as an Advisor in the ILCM Executive Forum when CIO related issues are addressed Commander, AF Materiel Command (AFMC/CC) will:

36 36 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Support the SAE, PEOs, and PMs by providing technical assistance, infrastructure, test capabilities, laboratory support, professional education, training and development, management tools, and all other aspects of support Serve as a Member of the ILCM Executive Forum. Assign a representative to the ILCM Executive Forum Secretariat Support the CSAF and MAJCOM/CCs by recommending phasing and adjustment of requirements to ensure operationally acceptable increments or blocks of capability are fielded in a timely manner Support the SAE, CSAF, and MAJCOM/CCs by monitoring and controlling weapon system requirements baselines from MS A to fielding. Special attention will be given to impact on depot activation requirements Support the SAE and/or the MDA by reviewing for information purposes acquisition strategies, LCMPs, TEMPs, SEPs, ISPs, TRAs and Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) plans to ensure robust enterprise-sensitive planning and make recommendations supporting all milestone decisions as required through the life cycle Support the SAE, CSAF, and MAJCOM/CCs by providing support for requirements formulation, continuous capability and technology planning, and acquisition strategies. Support must focus on enhancing program success while balancing cost, schedule, technical performance, and risk Provide expertise to the SAE, PEOs, and PMs by responding to individual requests or by supporting program reviews to include ASPs, AFRBs, independent review teams, production readiness reviews, and logistics assistance teams. Support the PM in developing and implementing the LCMP Execute the AFMC Mission Assignment Process throughout the ILCM life cycle. Establish management responsibilities and align the AFMC acquisition and sustainment infrastructure in support of approved missions/levels of service to achieve designated AF ILCM enterprise objectives Coordinate on the selection of nominated Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) Establish PGMs when directed in a HAF issuance or at the discretion of the AFMC/CC for specified product groups Approve and maintain the SPML Ensure all non-space programs on the SPML have a designated PM with responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production and sustainment to meet the users operational needs Review and coordinate on LCMPs for non-space programs on the SPML. Review SEPs for these programs Plan and execute the S&T Program. Ensure Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) responds to user needs by structuring science and technology efforts to meet nearterm documented operational requirements. Participate in the development of agreements

37 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST and technology transition plans with acquisition personnel to enable rapid and successful transition from AFRL technology projects to acquisition programs or operations Provide representatives to support development of program documentation according to AFI , AFI , AFI , and AFI and this AFI. Additional duties are specified in those respective AFIs Provide support in the development of COAs Assist users in developing JCIDS capability documents and ensure COAs are prepared for newly identified capabilities requirements and for emerging requirements not yet assigned to a PEO or DAO Support all domestic, international, and Security Assistance (including FMS) programs in which the AF participates Implement acquisition professional development program according to policy established by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Ensure timely, complete, sufficient, and accurate intelligence analysis, information and support is provided to and integrated within the acquisition process. Ensure the identification and documentation of derived intelligence requirements (including signature data), and assessment of intelligence-related risk during the Materiel Solution Analysis and Technology Development phases. Integrate results of assessments into life cycle planning, programming and technical life cycle documentation Develop critical processes, procedures, and automated systems to facilitate the AFwide implementation and efficient execution of ILCM critical processes Support program transfer from the PEO or DAO portfolio to the appropriate sustainment portfolio. Provide enterprise-wide program transfer status to the ILCM Executive Forum as appropriate Act as the AF executive manager for depot source of repair (DSOR). Review and process submitted DSOR packages (may be delegated) Develop and implement supplemental guidance to this directive as necessary. Supplemental guidance must be sent to SAF/AQX for review and coordination prior to publication Develop and provide migration plan training to applicable PMs. The training will relate to the policies and procedures for the storage, reclamation and disposal of inactive aircraft stored at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) Collect, consolidate, review, and submit all required annual migration plans to HQ AF Consult with HAF as appropriate on reclamation policies and issues Ensure Serialized Item Management (SIM), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) concepts and functions are developed and implemented as applicable Support planning, programming, and budgeting for out-year sustainment program funding requirements to include sustainment technology process requirements.

38 38 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure standardization and streamlining of logistics requirements determination process and execution of sustainment funding by the Centralized Asset Management Office. Specific processes affected are Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance (aircraft, missiles, engines, other major end items, non- Consolidated Sustainment Activity Group (CSAG) exchangeables, area base manufacturing, software and storage), Weapons System Management Support (contractor logistics support, technical orders and sustaining engineering) Develop processes and procedures for accurate collection and reporting of 50/50 and Core data and provide data IAW data calls. Maintain depot maintenance 50/50 workload mix database and analysis products Ensure implementation across sustainment programs for compliance with AF enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements identified to meet Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) Present at least annually the Air Force s 50/50 position and present status of all 50/50 initiatives to SAF/IE, SAF/AQ, SAF/US, and AF/A4/7. Immediately notify SAF/IE and AF/A4/7 of projected noncompliance with Title 10 USC Through the ALC/CCs, ensure that program strategies and execution of individual programs in their sustainment portfolio or on the SPML are aligned with product support objectives. Maintain responsibility for sustainment program performance for assigned systems or products over which the ALC/CCs have executive oversight; ensure PMs are managing sustainment program cost and schedule to meet all performance requirements within approved baselines, program direction, and the sustainment strategy Through the ALC/CCs, direct PMs of activities in their sustainment portfolio or on the SPML by emphasizing planning, reporting, and preparing for program reviews Through the ALC/CCs, maintain and implement the SEPs for those programs within their portfolio or on the SPML. Ensure use of a rigorous SE approach in all programs within their portfolio, with emphasis on assurance of OSS&E With the SAE, certify to the SECAF that the requirements as described in the CDD for ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II programs can be translated for evaluation in a source selection in a clear and unambiguous way; are prioritized (if appropriate); and are organized into feasible increments of capability. The certification will occur concurrent with document presentation to the AFROC For non-space programs, attest that the capability requirements as described in all CPDs and delegated ACAT II and below CDDs are feasible. If appropriate, attestation will be completed concurrent with document presentation to the AFROC In collaboration with lead MAJCOMs and PMs, collect, validate, and maintain current requirements and funding data by weapon system for all elements of depot activation and report data to HAF upon request. Establish a central depository for depot activation requirements data, to include associated operational rationale and/or impacts Update and maintain configuration control of the Acquisition Strategy (AS) Tool Kit. The AS Tool Kit will be updated to maintain consistency with emerging policy changes as required; as a minimum, the AS Tool Kit will be updated annually.

39 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure that Product Center and ALC System Safety Managers support Center-level program reviews and coordinate on new and updated Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluations (PESHE) generated at their Center Ensure AFMC Product, Test, and Logistics Center Commanders or equivalents (e.g., AFRL Commander) assign a Center-Level Technical Authority In conjunction with AFSPC, provide governance of DP prior to MDD to ensure effective management and execution. Serve as DP Single Point of Entry (DP SPE) for sponsor requests for materiel resources for non-space DP efforts Commander, AF Research Laboratory (AFRL/CC) will: Support the development of phased capabilities requirements by helping the acquisition and operational communities assess the maturity and viability of considered technologies in order to rapidly and successfully transition their technology projects into operational military systems. Provide subject matter experts as requested by SAF/AQR to be Independent Review Panel (IRP) leads and members for program Technology Readiness Assessments Help secure approved technology transition plans (TTP), to include prime contractors Help secure associate contractor agreements between the technology developer and the acquisition systems prime contractor, if required Support seamless communication and collaboration to assist in the incorporation of identified technologies; when appropriate co-locate laboratory personnel with the PM Ensure incorporation of SE methodologies tailored for AFRL technology development done in support of evolutionary acquisition (EA) programs Ensure enhanced management oversight to quickly identify and resolve any issues that arise and exploit additional collaborative opportunities Ensure coordination from stakeholders that the fielded technology is supportable within program cost and time constraints Promote the use of spectrum efficient technologies Commander, AF Space Command (AFSPC/CC) will: Support the DOD Executive Agent for Space, SAE, PEOs, and PMs by providing technical assistance, infrastructure, test capabilities, professional education, training and development, and all other aspects of support for space programs Appoint AFSPC/CV as a Member of the ILCM Executive Forum. Assign a representative to the ILCM Executive Forum Secretariat Advise and assist the DOD Executive Agent for Space and SAE through formal and informal forums Support the DOD Executive Agent for Space, SAE, CSAF, and MAJCOM/CCs, by monitoring and controlling space system contracted requirements baselines from MS A to launch/fielding.

40 40 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Support the DoD Executive Agent for Space, SAE, CSAF, and MAJCOM/CCs by providing support for requirements formulation, continuous capability and technology planning, and acquisition strategies. Support must focus on enhancing program success while balancing cost, schedule, technical performance, and risk Support the DOD Executive Agent for Space, SAE and/or the MDA by reviewing acquisition strategies, LCMPs, TEMPs, SEPs, ISPs, TRSs, and PESHE plans for space programs to ensure robust enterprise-sensitive planning, and make recommendations supporting all MS decisions as required throughout the life cycle Provide expertise to the DOD Executive Agent for Space, SAE, PEOs, and PMs by responding to individual requests or by supporting space program execution reviews to include ASPs, AFRBs, independent review teams, production readiness reviews, and logistics assistance teams Ensure all space programs have a designated PM with responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, sustainment, and disposal to meet the users operational needs Ensure AFRL responds to user needs supporting space programs by structuring S&T efforts to meet near-term documented operational requirements, participating in the development of agreements and technology transition plans with acquisition personnel to enable rapid and successful transition from AFRL technology projects to space acquisition programs Provide representatives to support development of program documentation according to AFI , AFI , AFI , and AFI , and this AFI. Additional duties are specified in those respective AFIs Support all domestic, international and Security Assistance (including FMS) space acquisition programs in which the AF participates Implement acquisition professional development program according to policy established by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Ensure timely, complete, sufficient, and accurate intelligence analysis, information, and support is provided to and integrated within the acquisition process. Ensure the identification of derived intelligence requirements (to include signature data), assessment of intelligence-related risk and the documentation of intelligence requirements, during the Materiel Solution Analysis and Technology Development phases Support the processes, procedures and automated systems to facilitate the implementation and efficient execution of CAM, DSOR, and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) Support long-range priorities and systems support planning for space systems Develop and implement supplemental guidance to this directive as necessary. Supplemental guidance must be sent to SAF/USA and SAF/AQX for review and coordination prior to publication Consult with HAF offices as appropriate on reclamation policies.

41 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure SIM, RCM and CBM+ concepts and functions are developed and implemented as applicable Follow the AFMC Mission Assignment Process (MAP) as applicable when requesting support from an AFMC Product Center, Logistics Center, or Laboratory Support planning, programming, and budgeting for out-year space system sustainment program funding requirements to include sustainment technology process (STP) requirements Ensure standardization and streamlining of logistics requirements determination process and execution of sustainment funding for space programs/systems. Specific processes affected are Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance (space ground command and control systems, radomes, antennas, and software), Weapons System Management Support (contractor logistics support, technical orders and sustaining engineering) Support implementation across space sustainment activities for compliance with AF enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements identified to meet Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) With the SAE, certify to the SECAF that the requirements as described in the CDD for ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II space programs can be translated for evaluation in a source selection in a clear and unambiguous way; are prioritized (if appropriate); and are organized into feasible increments of capability. The certification will occur concurrent with document presentation to the AFROC For space programs, attest the capability requirements as described in all CPDs and delegated ACAT II and below CDDs are feasible. If appropriate, attestation will be completed concurrent with document presentation to the AFROC The AF Frequency Management Agency (AFFMA) plans, provides, and preserves access to the electromagnetic spectrum for the AF and selected DOD activities in support of national/international policy objectives, systems development, and global operations Ensure that Product Center and ALC System Safety Managers support Center-level program reviews and coordinate on new and updated Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluations (PESHE) generated at their Center Ensure AFSPC Product, Test, and Logistics Center Commanders or equivalents assign a Center-Level Technical Authority In conjunction with AFMC, provide governance of DP prior to MDD to ensure effective management and execution. Serve as DP Single Point of Entry (DP SPE) for sponsor requests for materiel resources for space DP efforts Operational Commands and Field Operating Agencies (FOA). Operational commands (e.g., Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, AF Special Operations Command, Air Education and Training Command, Air Force Global Strike Command, and AFSPC) and FOAs will: Develop and document capability requirements and accomplish analysis to ensure needs of capability users are met. Advocate needs through the JCIDS process.

42 42 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Collaborate with implementing commands to integrate long-term studies, future concepts, and existing and planned weapon systems into Air Force and DoD investment strategies Submit requests for materiel (AFMC and AFSPC) resources in support of development planning to meet operational capability needs through the DP Single Point of Entry (DP SPE) for prioritization of resources and to ensure visibility of all stakeholder interests Provide the PM with validated weapon system requirements documents Participate with joint organizations to ensure overall capability and specific weapon system requirements and CONOPS are in consonance with requirements, concepts, and directives Provide weapon system program advocacy, support development of weapon system Program Objective Memoranda (POM) inputs and advocate capability requirements during the PPBE process Conduct analysis and provide documentation for developing new or modified weapon systems that enable AF CONOPS Work with the ILCM community and Air Force laboratories to help focus R&D on user needs Work with the acquisition community to help evaluate cost-benefit trades Ensure weapon system capability based requirements accurately describe operational needs Develop weapon system operational architectures according to current JCIDS and ISP requirements, in perspective of overall capability architectures Coordinate with PM to keep Program Management Agreements (PMA) current Implement AF product support policies jointly with HQ AFMC for non-space programs or HQ AFSPC for space programs. Support the development of the product support strategy Develop and validate current and projected operational product support requirements and performance parameters/metrics for Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Support planning, programming, and budgeting for out-year sustainment program funding requirements Coordinate with the acceptance authority for program ESOH risks throughout the life cycle of the program and provide formal concurrence on risks classified as High or Serious as defined by MIL STD-882D Participate in the development and/or review of program related documentation when the MAJCOM is the designated operational test organization for a program in lieu of AF Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) Collaborate with AFMC for depot activation requirements and funding data.

43 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) Commander, AF Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA/CC) will: (Added-AFISRA) Support acquisition and sustainment life cycle management planning for strategic, tactical, and other missions for NSA/CSS, DIA, NGA, AFMC, AFISRA and external DoD organizations, as applicable (Added-AFISRA) Designate the Director of Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support (A4/7) as the AFISRA lead Acquisition Logistics Manager for implementing acquisition and sustainment life cycle management planning in each acquisition phase/process of a mission capability, to include requirements development, production, deployment, sustainment and decommission, as stipulated in AFI (Added-AFISRA) Ensure compliance with validated acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policies, guidance and processes used by external DoD acquisition organizations to deploy new or upgraded mission capabilities to AFISRA organizations Commander, Air Education and Training Command (AETC/CC) will: Ensure capability requirements and acquisition documents contain executable training strategies for effective fielding Support acquisition events throughout the life cycle of programs to ensure training issues are addressed to provide long-term viability for capability needs Maintain and support the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (CSE) to provide specific systems engineering help, advice, and assistance as an independent advisor to the program execution leadership Commander, AF Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC/CC) will: Function as the Air Force s operational test agency (OTA) as a direct reporting unit (DRU) to the CSAF. Monitor Air Force technology projects and acquisition programs to ensure operational test and evaluation (OT&E) is conducted prior to full rate production (FRP), full deployment (for automated information systems (AIS)), or fielding Participate in the development and/or review of TDS, LCMPs, ISPs, ICD, CDD, CPD, AOAs, COAs, PMDs, and other pertinent program documentation for programs for which AFOTEC is planning to conduct operational testing Provide operational test inputs to the T&E strategy, TEMP, and test plans that are integrated Develop all areas pertaining to AFOTEC conducted operational testing for the TEMP. Prepare Operational Test portions of the TEMP Plan and conduct operational testing for programs on OSD T&E oversight and others as required by AFI Co-chair Integrated Test Team (ITT) with the PMs for programs that AFOTEC is planning to conduct operational testing AF Human Systems Integration Office (AFHSIO) will:

44 44 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Facilitate and advocate integration of Human Systems Integration (HSI) into the ILCM framework and AF policies and guidance to comprehensively implement, assess, and improve HSI Facilitate and advocate comprehensive HSI familiarization, tools, technology and methods to support PEOs, DAOs, PMs, Systems Engineers, and others involved in requirements development, acquisition and sustainment Provide expert advice, real-time assistance, and implementation strategies of HSI Support the development, communication and implementation of HSI initiatives Oversee and advocate HSI focus in activities regarding systems integration, systems engineering, total system performance and total operating costs Program Executive Officers (PEO) will: Be responsible for total life cycle management of their assigned portfolios including assigned ACAT programs and ensure collaboration across the ILCM framework. The PEO is responsible for, and has authority to accomplish, portfolio/program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet warfighters operational needs. The PEO will lead portfolios based on solid business strategies and work with the CD to secure necessary funding in time to meet those requirements Be dedicated to executive management and shall not have other command responsibilities except as waived Ensure PMs work with appropriate stakeholders and MAJCOM representatives to develop capabilities based requirements, operational, system and technical level architectures, test plans that integrate, technology transition plans, product support strategies, and acquisition strategies throughout the entire life cycle Maintain a continuous dialogue with the operational and implementing commands including sustaining, testing, training, and other development commands. Give early warning to the user, SAE, and acquisition staff of significant problems or issues Serve as designated officials for acquisition of services in their respective portfolio and comply with Chapter 4 of this AFI Serve as acceptance authority for program ESOH risks classified Serious as defined by the government and industry Standard Practice for System Safety, MIL-STD- 882D. The user representative shall be part of this process throughout the life cycle and shall provide formal concurrence prior to all serious risk acceptance decisions Chair ASP for ACAT II (as delegated) and III programs Recommend PMs and Deputy PMs for ACAT I, ACAT IA, ACAT II and selected programs to the SAE Approve selection of PMs for ACAT III programs Charter all delegated ACAT II and ACAT III PMs Direct PMs by emphasizing planning, reporting, and preparing for milestone and other program reviews.

45 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Use the Acquisition Centers of Excellence (ACE) to provide real-time, on-call assistance to programs and as independent advisors providing recommendations on program business strategy and documentation, and for independent program assessments Review and approve SEPs per AFI and monitor their implementation Ensure Courses of Action (COA) are prepared for newly identified capabilities requirements and the users agree with the COA Use EVM as an oversight tool, ensure program office compliance with EVM policy and guidance, and ensure program office personnel receive adequate EVM training Ensure PMs are managing acquisition program costs and schedules to meet all performance requirements within approved baselines, program direction, and the acquisition strategy Ensure that all programs listed on the APML update program information contained in the SMART database. Review and assess each AF Monthly Acquisition Report (MAR) on a monthly basis Notify HQ AFMC and/or HQ Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) of new mission workload and changes in workload to include proposed mission transfers. Work with HQ AFMC and/or HQ AFSPC to identify requirements for program facilities, personnel, and resources and validate infrastructure investment requirements identified by PMs Review and approve the integrated life cycle strategy, as described in the Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) Ensure validated MAJCOM needs drive the acquisition and modification planning process Review requests for End Use Certificates (EUC) identified by the PMs and submit for SAF/AQ approval Review and provide concurrence on TEMPs for assigned programs where the PEO is the decision authority, or as delegated or assigned. For programs on the OSD T&E Oversight List, forward TEMPs per TEMP coordination procedures in AFI Ensure implementation across portfolio and acquisition programs for compliance with identified AF enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements to meet Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) Appoint a Chief Systems Engineer (as established in DoDI ) Program Executive Officer, Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM) will: Exercise decision authority for acquisitions of services with a total estimated value of $100 million or greater, or those designated as special interest, according to the procedures in Chapter 4 of this instruction, including delegation of responsibilities as deemed appropriate Be dedicated to executive management and shall not have other command responsibilities except as waived.

46 46 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Provide executive management and overall direction and guidance for the acquisition of services with a total estimated value in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. (Reference FAR and FAR ) Exercise additional Acquisition of Services roles as identified in Chapter 4 of this document Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) will: Be responsible for total life cycle management of their assigned portfolios including assigned ACAT programs and ensure collaboration across the ILCM framework. The DAO is responsible for, and has authority to accomplish, portfolio/program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet warfighters operational needs. The DAO will lead portfolios based on solid business strategies and work with the CD to secure necessary funding in time to meet those requirements Ensure PMs work with appropriate stakeholders and MAJCOM representatives to develop capabilities based requirements, operational, system and technical level architectures, test plans that integrate, technology transition plans, product support strategies, and acquisition strategies throughout the entire life cycle Maintain a continuous dialogue with the operational and implementing commands including sustaining, testing, training, and other development commands. Give early warning to the user, SAE, and acquisition staff of significant problems or issues Serve as designated officials for acquisition of services in their respective portfolio and comply with Chapter 4 of this AFI Serve as acceptance authority for program ESOH risks classified Serious as defined by the government and industry Standard Practice for System Safety, MIL-STD- 882D. The user representative shall be part of this process throughout the life cycle and shall provide formal concurrence prior to all serious risk acceptance decisions Chair ASP for ACAT II (as delegated) and III programs Recommend PMs and Deputy PMs for ACAT II and selected programs to the SAE Approve selection of PMs for ACAT III programs Charter all delegated ACAT II and ACAT III PMs Direct PMs by emphasizing planning, reporting, and preparing for milestone and other program reviews Use the Acquisition Centers of Excellence (ACE) to provide real-time, on-call assistance to programs and as independent advisors providing recommendations on program business strategy and documentation, and for independent program assessments Review and approve SEPs per AFI and monitor their implementation Ensure Courses of Action (COA) are prepared for newly identified capabilities requirements and the users agree with the COA Use EVM as an oversight tool, ensure program office compliance with EVM policy and guidance, and ensure program office personnel receive adequate EVM training.

47 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure PMs are managing acquisition program costs and schedules to meet all performance requirements within approved baselines, program direction, and the acquisition strategy Ensure that all programs listed on the APML update program information contained in the SMART database. Review and assess each AF Monthly Acquisition Report (MAR) on a monthly basis Notify HQ AFMC of new mission workload and changes in workload to include proposed mission transfers. Work with HQ AFMC to identify requirements for program facilities, personnel, and resources and validate infrastructure investment requirements identified by PMs Review and approve the integrated life cycle strategy, as described in the Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) Ensure validated MAJCOM needs drive the acquisition and modification planning process Review requests for EUC identified by the PMs and submit for SAF/AQ approval Review and provide concurrence on TEMPs for assigned programs where the DAO is the decision authority, or as delegated or assigned. For programs on the OSD T&E Oversight List, forward TEMPs per TEMP coordination procedures in AFI Ensure implementation across portfolio and acquisition programs for compliance with identified AF enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements to meet Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) Program Managers (PM), including System Program Managers (SPM), will: Be accountable for designated programs through the ILCM governance chain of authority on all matters of program cost, schedule, and performance Develop appropriate programmatic documentation as required by this and other applicable instructions. Ensure the programmatic documentation is coordinated with all applicable user, sustainment, test, and system engineering stakeholders. Maintain programmatic documentation throughout the life cycle of the system in accordance with this and other instructions Ensure the LCMP fulfills the FAR requirements of the Acquisition Plan and the DODI requirements of the Acquisition Strategy (including the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan) Execute program within the approved APB or other program baseline documentation Immediately notify the PEO/DAO of any breach or potential breach, as defined by law and/or regulation, to the APB or other original or current program baseline documentation Participate in the AoA process, development of COAs, and development of TDS.

48 48 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure product support integration as a continuous and collaborative set of activities that establish and maintain readiness and the operational capability of a system, subsystem, or end-item throughout its life cycle Ensure a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) is developed, implemented, and updated per AFI to provide adequate insight into the program s technical planning Develop and implement, as applicable, Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) functions Ensure technologies in the program have been demonstrated in a relevant environment (or preferably an operational environment) prior to MS B and certified by the MDA as required. Ensure technologies are matured prior to MS C for the production of each increment of capability. Coordinate TRA preparations for MDAPs and other DAE/SAE programs with SAF/AQR no later than 12 months prior to MSs B, C. Plan, fund and complete appropriate technology demonstrations for MSs B and C not later than 2 months prior to the Acquisition Board for each milestone. Ensure maturity of Critical Technology Elements (CTE) is addressed in MDAP source selections conducted in conjunction with MS B Ensure and preserve the operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness (OSS&E) throughout the life cycle of systems delivered to the user by working collaboratively with the user, test community, and other stakeholders Ensure an intelligence supportability analysis is conducted in collaboration with the local (center-level) intelligence office to establish program intelligence sensitivity, document intelligence requirements (to include signature requirements), and ensure current, authoritative threat data is used for analysis throughout the program life cycle. Analysis shall be conducted in accordance with AFI , Intelligence in Force Modernization, CJCSI , Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification and DODD , Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense Ensure all technology, acquisition, sustainment, and management decisions are based on a balance between system or product capabilities, integrated risk assessments, and total ownership cost (TOC) Seek assistance from functional and acquisition staffs at all levels with respect to compliance with AF guidance, policies, procedures, and public law Serve as acceptance authority for program ESOH risks classified Medium or Low as defined by MIL-STD-882D. PM shall prepare and review High and Serious risk acceptance packages and forward to the appropriate authorities with an action recommendation. The user representative shall be part of this process throughout the life cycle Execute Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales (FMS)) system acquisition programs in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act and DOD M, Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM). DOD Financial Management Regulation R; AFMAN , International Affairs and Security Assistance Management; and DOD M, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Case Reconciliation and Closure Manual.

49 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Implementation shall also be in accordance with the DOD 5000 acquisition series; the 63- series acquisition AFIs; and the 16-series operations support AFIs Ensure aircraft system programs have an Aircraft Availability Improvement Program (AAIP) plan by MS C and airworthiness certification per AFPD 62-6, USAF Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Ensure aircraft and weapon/store system programs have a SEEK EAGLE certification plan completed by MS B per AFI , The SEEK EAGLE Program Ensure applicable programs meet the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act as described in Subtitle III of title 40, United States Code, DODI , DODI Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS) and DODI Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) Establish an effective quality management system to ensure product quality (e.g., design, manufacturing, performance, reliability, maintainability, and military flight operations) throughout the life cycle Establish and co-chair an Integrated Test Team (ITT) prior to MS A (or as early as possible but no later than MS B) to ensure the T&E strategy is developed, coordinated and fully integrated with the acquisition, intelligence, and sustainment strategies throughout the life cycle in accordance with AFI , Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation Ensure the ITT develops and implements a test program, including LFT&E if required, in accordance with AFI Ensure a TEMP is developed, coordinated and updated to provide adequate insight into the program s T&E planning Develop a system certification plan as early as practical, but no later than MS B, to ensure systems are certified ready for dedicated OT&E according to AFMAN Implement a deficiency reporting process according to Technical Order (TO) 00-35D-54, USAF Deficiency Reporting, Investigating, and Resolution and AFI , Air Force Acquisition Quality Program Address all aspects of system survivability requirements specified in the program s capability documents and also plan for survivability validation and verification Provide an assessment of the system s survivability in the anticipated battlefield environment to support milestone and in-process reviews (IPR). For any shortfalls in meeting survivability requirements identified during milestone and IPR, the PM will provide a plan for meeting the requirements as well as any associated risk analysis and mitigation plan In the event of updates to the capability documents, the PM will conduct a review to assess the impacts of changes to system survivability Update program information in the SMART database for all programs listed on the APML and prepare an AF MAR on a monthly basis.

50 50 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure applicable information systems are registered in the AF system of record for IT management data, currently the Enterprise Information Technology Data Repository (EITDR) in accordance with AFI , Vol. 1, Network and Computer Security (to be replaced by AFI Information Assurance Management and AFI , Air Force Certification and Accreditation Process (AFCAP) when published) Plan and program for Information Assurance (IA) engineering, certification and accreditation activities in their program plans, budgets, and contracts as appropriate Utilize the SISSU process and consider employment of IT Lean on applicable IT programs Ensure weapon systems and end-items (e.g., Support Equipment/Automatic Test Systems (SE/ATS), software and firmware) that support nuclear operations follow the Air Force nuclear certification process as outlined in AFI , Nuclear Certification Program Identify and coordinate execution of any independent assessments required by statute, executive orders, DOD issuances, or AF issuances Ensure the new MDA is up to date on program status and planning if a program s change in ACAT level designation results in a change in MDA Ensure non-statutory or non-policy requirements (e.g. independent assessments, out-of-cycle reporting, additional oversight requests, etc.) add value or require the proponent to justify the requirement and identify the resources (e.g., materiel, personnel, skills, training, and funding) for execution. The functional proponent may appeal an SPM/PM determination through the programmatic chain up to the MDA Coordinate key program documents and decisions with appropriate members of the ILCM enterprise throughout the life cycle Implement a program protection program from inception throughout the life of the system to ensure that critical technology and Critical Program Information (CPI), including Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), are protected against deliberate and unintended compromise or disclosure in accordance with DOD M, Acquisition Systems Protection Program, DODI , Critical Program Information (CPI) Protection within the Department of Defense, and AFPAM , Program Protection Planning (will convert to AFMAN , Program Protection Planning for Life Cycle Management) Ensure that when a program enters acquisition at a point other than pre-ms A all phase-specific criteria relating to a skipped MS are completed consistent with statutory/regulatory requirements Ensure that product/system-level performance, integrity, and safety requirements are maintained throughout the operational life of a product or weapon system Ensure industrial base constraints are identified and managed throughout the life cycle Ensure the establishment of depot stand-up actions from Source of Repair (SOR) decisions.

51 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Implement identified AF enterprise Core and 50/50 program requirements to meet Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and Title 10 USC 2466 (50/50) Contact SAF/AQL for assistance with Special Access Programs (SAP) Collaborate with sponsoring MAJCOMs/Agencies to identify cost and schedule impacts associated with changing any approved operational requirements Provide depot activation requirements and funding data to AFMC as requested. Collaborate with AFMC on depot activation requirements and funding Coordinate Air Force Program Support Reviews (AF PSRs) preparations for ACAT I, non-delegated ACAT II, and selected DAE/SAE programs with SAF/AQR no later than 12 months prior to milestone decision. Plan and program for AF PSRs in their program plans, budgets, and contracts as appropriate Acquisition Centers of Excellence (ACE) will: Provide expert advice and on-call, real time assistance (pre- and post-award) to the space and non-space SAE, AFMC/CC, AFSPC/CC, PEOs, DAOs, PMs, logistics center commanders and others per the ACE Concept of Operation (CONOPS). Provide support for acquisition strategy development, source selection, acquisition risk management, acquisition just-in-time training, best practices, and lessons learned Participate in acquisition review and decision forums (e.g., ASPs) to provide objective inputs to acquisition decisions and processes Provide specific acquisition help, advice, and assistance as an independent advisor to the program execution leadership (MDA, SAE, PEO, DAO, and center commanders) Support the implementation of acquisition process improvements within product and logistics centers by identifying issues/problems for process redesign, participating in redesign efforts, and communicating and facilitating re-engineered processes changes. Provide training to the workforce as they implement process changes HQ AF, Chief of Safety (AF/SE) will: Support AFRBs Coordinate on all ESOH High Risk Acceptance packages before submission for SAE acceptance HQ AF, A ssistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence & Nuclear Integration (AF/A10) will: Act as the single HAF nuclear staff authority and advocate to ensure uniformity and accuracy of nuclear acquisition and sustainment lifecycle management policy and guidance. Provide staff oversight to ensure synchronization and integration of all related issues across the nuclear enterprise. Review and advocate, in collaboration with and in support of MAJCOMs, nuclear mission support priorities and associated plans with and in support of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Joint Staff, Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), US Strategic Command, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, and US Navy.

52 52 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Provide presence and advocacy for nuclear enterprise-wide initiatives supporting Air Force nuclear weapon system requirements in the acquisition processes with respect to nuclear and global strike capabilities Collaboratively work with appropriate acquisition agencies, testers, sustainers, contractors, DOE, NNSA, National Laboratories, and other key stakeholders in developing operational capability requirements documents and associated courses of action (COAs) Support ADM and PMD development as needed for nuclear enterprise matters Review LCMP as required or requested Review capability requirements documents to ensure they accurately address operability, supportability, systems survivability, nuclear surety, and account for necessary USAF infrastructure Validate operational issues concerning nuclear systems survivability Participate as an advisor in the Integrated Life Cycle Management Executive Forum when issues regarding phasing or adjustments to nuclear requirements are addressed (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Staff Officers (Added-AFISRA) Chief, Logistics Readiness Division (AFISRA/A4R) will: (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the AFISRA/A4/7 OPR for developing, implementing and providing acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policy and management guidance in support of mission capabilities (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) advocate and manager for AFISRA Corporate Process validated requirements across all funding programs, such as General Defense Intelligence Program (GDIP), Air Force Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Program, Defense Cryptologic Program (DCP), National Geospatial-Intelligence Program (NGP) or Consolidated Cryptologic Program (CCP) (Added-AFISRA) Represent AFISRA on advisory/working groups, Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), boards, and meetings with intent to develop and address AF/NSA/SCC Tri-Service acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policy and requirements for mission capabilities (Added-AFISRA) Exercise, and/or collaborate with AFISRA staff offices, acquisition and sustainment life cycle management roles and responsibilities as prescribed in this supplement, AFI , AFPAM , Guide to Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management and other established DoD policies, as applicable (Added-AFISRA) Chair LCL management teams consisting of multidiscipline managers (i.e. comm-computer, operations, training, maintenance, supply, etc.) for deployment of new mission capabilities and system modifications (Added-AFISRA) Ensure validated acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policies and processes applicable to, or developed by, external DoD organizations (i.e., NSA/CSS, AFMC, DIA, NGA, etc.) are communicated and implemented in the field.

53 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) Staff, review, address issues and consolidate internal comments relating to acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policy and requirements in order to ensure the establishment of one AFISRA position (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the focal point for the development, staffing and coordination of Life Cycle Management Plans (LCMPs), Acquisition Logistics Support Plans (ALSPs), Logistics Support Plans (LSPs) and Life Cycle Sustainment Plans (LCSPs), etc. throughout AFISRA organizations/stakeholders (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the release authority for agency developed LCMPs, ALSPs, LSPs, and LCSPs (Added-AFISRA) Maintain and/or distribute a master file index of agency published support plans (Added-AFISRA) Ensure availability of agency published support plans to all stakeholders (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the AFISRA focal point for the Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP) for LCL, Technical Data Management, and AF Engineering Data Group (Added-AFISRA) Chief, Maintenance Division (AFISRA/A4M) will: (Added-AFISRA) Develop and validate AFMC programmed Contract Sustainment Support (CSS) requirements in support of weapon systems where AFISRA is designated lead/using command IAW Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 10-9, Lead Command Designation and Responsibility for Weapons System (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the Centralized Asset Management (CAM) focal point and provide weapon system sustainment support advocacy when AFISRA is designated lead command (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the OPR for coordinating AFMC Weapon System Annex (WSA)/Performance Based Outcome (PBO) Agreements IAW the current CAM Logistic Requirements Determination Process (Added-AFISRA) Chief, Civil Engineer Division (AFISRA/A7C) will: (Added-AFISRA) Administer policy and issue AF implementation guidance for real property (Facilities) support capabilities to ensure user mission capability readiness consistent with statutes, executive orders, and DoD issuances. Ensure functional policies as requested are communicated to the field (Added-AFISRA) Advocate AFISRA real property requirements to corporate AF, OSD, and Congressional entities (Added-AFISRA) Assess Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) enterprise capabilities and performance outcomes in support of AF and National Intelligence mission needs (Added-AFISRA) Develop and support real property information gathering and data monitoring systems to support measurement of facilities and utility infrastructure performance and supportability status of mission capability facilities.

54 54 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) Ensure Facility Condition Index (FCI) concepts and functions are developed and implemented as applicable (Added-AFISRA) Support activities throughout a mission capability s life cycle to ensure real property sustainment issues are addressed for long-term system viability (Added-AFISRA) Chief, Contracting Division (AFISRA/A7K) will: (Added-AFISRA) Advise the AFISRA Commander and Agency staff officers on all matters relating to contracting, acquisition, contract types, contract law, small business, competition and DoD/AF acquisition and sustainment life cycle management policy (Added-AFISRA) Exercise additional roles as identified in AFI , relating to Acquisition of Services (Added-AFISRA) Air Force Cryptologic Office (AFCO) Staff Officers (AFISRA/Detachment 1) will: (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the AF principal that represents and ensures AF equities and interests are addressed and integrated into the NSA/CSS Acquisition and Logistics policies as prescribed by AFISRA Mission Directive 1554, AF ISR Agency Detachment 1, Air Force Cryptologic Office (AFCO) (Added-AFISRA) Serve as the provisional test and evaluation director(s) on behalf of the NSA/CSS Operational Test Authority (OTA) (Added-AFISRA) Perform AF SCC acquisition and sustainment life cycle management responsibilities as identified in this supplement (Added-AFISRA) Commanders, AFISRA Centers, Wings, and Groups (as applicable) will: (Added-AFISRA) Designate a single point of entry for acquisition and sustainment life cycle management or integrated product support planning and assessment. Identify OPR(s) to AFISRA/A4R, and AFCO for NSA acquired capabilities (Added-AFISRA) Ensure acquisition and sustainment life cycle policy compliance for all new or modified capabilities scheduled for deployment to responsible activities/organizations (Added-AFISRA) Establish a tailored logistics support analysis process for locally procured mission support or modified systems/equipment, including commercial off-theshelf (COTS) automatic data processing equipment (Added-AFISRA) Participate as members on IPTs, configuration boards, test teams, and logistics support meetings to advocate an organizational position on acquisition and sustainment life cycle issues/requirements (Added-AFISRA) Coordinate acquisition and sustainment life cycle issues, concerns, or impasses to AFISRA/A4/7, AFCO, appropriate acquisition authority, and/or program manager (as applicable) for review, coordination, and/or resolution.

55 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) Staff, review and coordinate planning documentation for new or modified mission capabilities internally and with subordinate activities; consolidate comments; and, forward responses to the responsible authority for action/resolution, as requested (Added-AFISRA) Assist subordinate organizations with resolutions of deficiencies (Added-AFISRA) Include AFISRA/A4R as an addressee on mission capability acquisition and sustainment planning messages. In addition, AFISRA/A4R should be included as a courtesy addressee on minutes for all planning meetings focusing on acquisition and sustainment life cycle management related issues (Added-AFISRA) Ensure a LCMP, ALSP, LSP or LCSP for mission capabilities deployed within their areas of responsibility is developed and a copy forwarded to AFISRA/A4R for review, coordination, and final approval (Added-AFISRA) Commanders, AFISRA Field Organizations will: (Added-AFISRA) Identify to AFISRA/A4R and AFCO a focal point to serve as the site integration manager(s) on all matters relating to a new or modified mission capabilities (Added-AFISRA) Ensure compliance with acquisition and sustainment life cycle readiness requirements as prescribed by AFISRA (Chapter 3) or the DoD policy used by the agency responsible for deploying new or modified mission capabilities to the location (Added-AFISRA) Facilitate LCL fact-finding trips and/or site surveys. Ensure hardware interface requirements, proper utilization of power, backup power, heating, ventilation and air conditioning requirements; rack cooling and floor space utilization are adequately addressed and documented. NOTE: AFISRA/A5C facilitates basing actions (i.e. stand-ups, moves, stand-downs, etc.) (Added-AFISRA) Participate in mission capability testing/demonstration activities (Added-AFISRA) Coordinate pre- and post- deployment issues, up through acceptance of a mission capability through the program manager, AFCO, AFISRA staff organizations, and/or the respective Wing/Group representatives, as applicable.

56 56 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Chapter 3 ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE READINESS Section 3A Acquisition and Sustainment Processes 3.1. Acquisition and Sustainment Processes Overview. The Program Manager (PM) has to assess and balance multiple process requirements from this guidance and other DOD and Headquarters Air Force (HAF) issuances. This section contains acquisition and sustainment process requirements applicable to Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM). Critical processes within the ILCM enterprise must be standardized to provide repeatable and predictable results. Process owners shall engage policy Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs) to ensure that standardized processes are codified in appropriate HAF or MAJCOM issuances. Additional detail on specific documents, requirements, limitations, and activities is presented in later sections Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Decisions, Certifications, and Reviews. The MDA may tailor program strategies and oversight, including documentation of program information, life cycle phases, the timing and scope of decision reviews, and decision levels to fit particular conditions of that program, consistent with applicable laws and regulations and the time sensitivity of the capability need. All tailoring decisions will be documented by the PM and approved by the MDA. The MDA will consider total life cycle factors such as the program s cost, funding, risk, schedule, importance to the user, technical complexity, information support, and program interfaces when making programmatic decisions. The MDA will conduct program reviews to assess the adequacy of all life cycle strategies, planning, and documents. The goal of program reviews is to provide the MDA sufficient, near real-time information that enables the MDA to provide direction without the need for formal oversight. At the request of the MDA and/or PM, all supporting functional staffs will provide resources and advice as appropriate. MDAs will review at least semi-annually any MDAP that has exceeded critical cost growth thresholds but has not been terminated, until one year after the date on which the program receives a new milestone approval Tailoring Regulatory Information and Procedures. The MDA may tailor DODI regulatory program information (Enclosure 4, Statutory and Regulatory Information and Milestone Requirements) to fit the particular conditions of an individual program. The MDA and PM may tailor AF Departmental guidance only to the extent provided in each applicable directive. Non-compliance with Departmental guidance requires the PM to notify the appropriate HAF organization as outlined in AFPD 63-1/ All acquisition and sustainment execution requirements, processes, procedures, or activities which require resources and are not required by statutes, executive orders, DOD issuances, Air Force directive issuances, or previously approved through the programmatic chain of command, must add value to the mission. Organizations outside the programmatic chain provide support and advice to the decision makers. If the PM analysis indicates a functional requirement does not add value, the PM can require the proponent to justify the requirement and identify the resources (e.g., materiel, personnel, skills, training, and funding) for execution. The functional proponent may appeal a PM determination through the programmatic chain up to the MDA. The burden of proof lies with the proponent.

57 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The MDA shall comply with all program Milestone (MS) certification requirements as prescribed by statute or DOD policy MS A Certification. The MDA for all MDAPs, without the authority to delegate, shall assess the program and sign a certification memorandum prior to MS A approval. MDAPs that received MS A approval prior to 22 May 2009 (date of enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009) and have not yet reached MS B must complete MS A certification as described herein prior to 22 May The certification will be completed via a memorandum for the record and will include the statements in 10 USC 2366a without modification For MDAP programs the MDA certifies at MS A: The program fulfills an approved initial capabilities document The program is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency as identified by the Secretary of Defense If the program duplicates a capability already provided by an existing system, the duplication provided by such system is necessary and appropriate An AoA has been performed consistent with the study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation That a cost estimate for the program has been submitted with the concurrence of Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (D,CAPE) and that the level of resources required to develop and procure the program is consistent with the priority level assigned by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) In addition to certification, the MDA of MDAP programs shall include the following in the ADM for MS A: I have made the certifications required by section 2366a of title 10, United States Code The PM shall notify the MDA if the projected cost of the program, at any time prior to MS B approval, exceeds the cost estimate for the program submitted at the time of the MS A certification by at least 25 percent or the program manager determines that the period of time required for the delivery of an initial operational capability is likely to exceed the schedule objective submitted at the time of certification by more than 25 percent The MDA, in consultation with the JROC/AFROC on matters related to program requirements and military needs, determines whether the level of resources required to develop and procure the system remains consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC/AFROC. The MDA may withdraw the certification concerned or rescind MS A approval if the MDA determines that such action is in the interest of national defense The MDA submits to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of PM notification of an MDAP cost or schedule growth prior to MS B a report that identifies the root causes and appropriate acquisition performance measures and includes one of the following:

58 58 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST A written certification (with a supporting explanation) stating that the program is essential to national security; there are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable military capability at less cost; new estimates of the development cost or schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; and the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program development cost and schedule A plan for terminating the development of the program or withdrawal of MS A approval, if the MDA determines that such action is in the interest of national defense MS B Certification. The MDA for an MDAP, without the authority to delegate, shall assess the program business case and sign a certification memorandum prior to MS B approval. MDAPs that received MS B approval prior to 6 Jan 2006 and have not yet reached MS C must complete MS B certification as described herein prior to 16 Feb 2010 or must complete annual certification assessment reviews the time of certification.. The certification memorandum shall include the statements in 10 U.S.C. 2366b without modification. If the program is initiated at a later date, i.e., MS C, a similar certification memorandum shall be prepared. The certification shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees with the first Selected Acquisition Report submitted after completion of the certification For MDAP programs the MDA certifies at MS B that: The program has received a business case analysis and certifies on the basis of the analysis that the program is affordable when considering the ability of the Department of Defense to accomplish the program's mission using alternative systems Appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and the total acquisition cost in the context of the total resources available during the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made Reasonable cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan under the program Funding is available to execute the product development and production plan under the program, through the period covered by the futureyears defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made The program has received a PDR and conducted a formal post-pdr assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission Appropriate market research has been conducted prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products The DOD has completed an analysis of alternatives with respect to

59 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST the program The JROC has accomplished its duties with respect to the program including an analysis of the operational requirements for the program The technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment as determined by the MDA on the basis of an independent review and assessment by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering The program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the DOD In addition to certification, the MDA of MDAP programs shall include the following in the ADM for MS B: I have reviewed the program and the business case analysis and have made the certifications required, or executed a waiver of the applicability of one or more of the components of the certification requirement as authorized by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code The PM shall notify the MDA immediately of any changes to the program that alter the substantive basis for the certification relating to any component of such certification or otherwise cause the program to deviate significantly from the material provided in support of such a certification. Upon receiving the notification, the MDA may withdraw the certification concerned or may rescind MS B approval if the MDA determines that such certification approval is no longer valid Waiver for National Security. The MS B MDA may, at the time of MS B approval or at the time of withdrawing a certification or rescinding MS B approval waive the applicability of one or more components of the certification requirement if the MDA determines that, but for such a waiver, the DOD would be unable to meet critical national security objectives. Whenever the MDA makes such a determination and authorizes such a waiver: The waiver, the determination, and the reasons for the determination shall be submitted in writing to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the waiver is authorized The MDA shall review the program not less often than annually to determine the extent to which the program currently satisfies the certification components until such time as the milestone decision authority determines that the program satisfies all certification components. All budget requests, budget justification material, budget displays, reprogramming requests, Selected Acquisition Reports, or other budget documentation or performance reports submitted to Congress must prominently and clearly indicate that the program has not fully satisfied the certification requirements (until such time as the MDA determines that the program has satisfied such certification requirements) Where the course of action, as approved and documented through the programmatic chain of command, conflicts with an AFPD, the PM shall submit a request for a waiver to the certifying authority for the publication, who will obtain SECAF approval for the waiver if warranted. Where the course of action, as approved and documented through the programmatic chain of command, conflicts with Air Force Departmental directive issuances

60 60 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 other than AFPDs, the PM shall submit a notification via memorandum to the appropriate SAF/AQ Capability Directorate, SAF/USA or AF/A4L for action. For programs on the APML, the notification should be submitted to the applicable SAF/AQ Capability Directorate. Notifications involving space programs should be submitted through SAF/USA. For programs on the SPML, the notification should be submitted to AF/A4L. Appropriate action shall be taken by the SAF/AQ Capability Directorate, SAF/USA, or AF/A4L to either provide direction to comply with policy, obtain a waiver to requirements, or to initiate changes to publications as appropriate to resolve the conflict IAW AFI Resolution of conflicts between Air Force issuances shall be resolved by SAF/AQX, SAF/USA, AF/A4L or SAF/IEL and the appropriate HAF functional Capability Based Requirements Development. The operational community is responsible for developing capability based requirements. However, the other ILCM stakeholders will participate to gain understanding and communicate the art of the possible. Refer to CJCSI , Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, the JCIDS Manual, AFI , Capabilities-Based Requirements Development, and AFI , Capabilities-Based Planning for additional details about the requirements development process The AFMC/CC and AFSPC/CC will support the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), Service Acquisition Executives (SAE) and other MAJCOM/CCs by: Recommending phasing and adjustments of requirements to ensure operationally acceptable increments are fielded in a timely manner Monitoring and controlling weapon system requirements baselines from MS A to fielding Attesting to feasibility of operational requirements concurrent with all CDD and CPD presentations to the AFROC. Feasible is defined as the requirements are technically achievable and executable within the estimated schedule and budgeted life-cycle cost The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process is closely integrated with the acquisition process and exists to identify, develop, and validate capability based requirements. JCIDS implements an approach that leverages the expertise of DOD and non-dod agencies and industry to identify, assess, and prioritize joint force capabilities. The process validates warfighting capabilities while considering the full range of materiel and non-materiel solutions. Within DOD, there is a distinct separation between the requirements authority and acquisition authority. In order for the processes to work effectively together, early and continual collaboration is required between both communities The PM shall support the establishment of the operational and sustainment related performance attributes that provide the capability that support the warfighter. All acquisition personnel who engage directly with the requirements community on requirements documents shall take the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) training module CLM 041 and the online training course RQM 110 (or appropriate executive level course) For ACAT I, ACAT IA, and non-delegated ACAT II programs within their portfolio, the SAE and AFMC/CC or AFSPC/CC shall certify CDDs to the SECAF concurrent to document presentation to the AFROC. The certification shall attest:

61 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The CDD requirements can be clearly and unambiguously translated for evaluation in a source selection The capabilities are prioritized (if appropriate) and organized into feasible increments of capability that are technically achievable and executable within the estimated schedule and budgeted life cycle cost Mission Assignment. The AF mission assignment process establishes management responsibilities in support of approved missions to achieve designated AF ILCM enterprise objectives. AFMC/AFSPC shall establish mission assignment processes to manage resources and align the acquisition and sustainment infrastructure and levels of service that ensure the proper resources and skills are positioned to achieve designated program outcomes HQ AFMC shall complete mission assignment for non-space activities in sufficient time to define and program for resources to support acquisition and sustainment planning, but not later than program initiation (usually MS B). HQ AFMC will refer to the Acquisition Program Master List (APML) and Sustainment Program Master List (SPML) to ensure appropriate mission assignments (ADMIN) HQ AFSPC shall complete mission assignment for space activities in sufficient time to define and program for resources to support acquisition and sustainment planning, but not later than program initiation (usually MS B) Capability Directors, PEOs, DAOs, PMs, MAJCOMs or other impacted organizations will notify HQ AFMC or HQ AFSPC of any change of workload that may impact a mission assignment. This notification will occur at Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and/or Capability Development Document (CDD) initiation, Materiel Development Decision (MDD), initial Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), or completion of Materiel Solution Analysis but not later than program initiation. Notification should occur in sufficient time to ensure HQ AFMC or HQ AFSPC can assess, define and program for resources to support acquisition and sustainment planning Evolutionary Acquisition (EA). EA is the DOD and AF preferred acquisition strategy for rapidly delivering needed capabilities to the users based on the maturation of technologies. The success of the EA strategy depends on consistent and repeated validation of operational capability requirements, stated in increments of increasing capability. These lead to the development of systems providing required capability. EA strategies demand maturation of technologies, robust systems engineering, and improved supportability strategies focused on adding capabilities in future increments. Under some circumstances, systems may be fielded using a traditional single step to full capabilities approach An EA approach delivers capabilities in increments, recognizing up front the need for future capabilities improvements. EA works hand-in-hand with the requirements process to provide the ability to incrementally refine capability requirements, insert technology or additional capabilities, react to the environment, and exploit opportunities as they arise. The objective is to balance needs and potential capabilities with resources and to quickly put supportable capabilities into the hands of the operator. During all phases of EA, sustainment elements must be considered and included in acquisition planning in order to sustain the system cost effectively. Figure 3.1 displays a notional program being developed using an

62 62 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 EA approach. Technology development preceding initiation of an increment shall be at the required level of maturity Incremental Development. There are two approaches to incremental development. The first consists of validated increments at program initiation that lead to satisfying the full end-state capability. The second consists of validated capability needs for the initial increment(s), while future increments and the precise end-state capabilities are not finalized at program initiation For incremental development that satisfies the full capability need, capability documents specify a stable, well-defined end-state capability and stable, well-defined interim increments, including an initial operational capability (IOC) date for each increment. In this case, the acquisition strategy defines each increment of capability and how it will be funded, developed, tested, produced, and sustained For incremental development where the end-state capability is not defined, incremental development relies on user feedback and technology maturation to define requirements for future validation. In this process, the initial capability requirements specify a stable, well-defined first increment(s), including an IOC date for those defined increments. Future increments and end-state capabilities are not finalized at program initiation. The acquisition strategy defines the first increment of capability and how it will be funded, developed, tested, produced, and supported. It also describes the desired general capability the program is intended to satisfy, and establishes a management approach that will be used to define the exact capability needs for each subsequent increment. Future capabilities requirements for subsequent increments are refined through demonstration and risk management. Figure 3.1. Evolutionary Acquisition Approach.

63 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Management of System of Systems (SoS)/Family of System (FoS). Systems of Systems/Family of Systems acquisition is required when a materiel solution analysis to a capability need described in an Initial Capability Document (ICD) cannot be accomplished by a single weapon system, and will require collaboration of new and/or modified weapon systems and existing weapon systems. MDAs and PMs for programs that are system of systems will be cognizant of the decomposition and allocation of capabilities and resources amongst the constituent systems and other elements of the SoS/FoS. Special consideration will be given to critical technical interfaces and programmatic interdependencies. During the acquisition and sustainment process, MDAs shall consider overall system progress during milestone reviews Air Force Review Boards (AFRB)/Acquisition Strategy Panels (ASP). AF Review Boards/Acquisition Strategy Panels are integral to a deliberative process that supports AF leadership in making milestone decisions or conducting major decision reviews Air Force Review Boards (AFRB) AF Review Boards are forums chaired by the SAE for conducting major decision reviews (in- or out-of-cycle), as well as making and documenting major milestone decisions. AFRBs are not conducted for services or space programs AF PM&AE is the AFRB process owner and secretariat The AFRB process is required for all ACAT IC, ACAT IAC, non-delegated ACAT II programs and special interest programs. The PEO may recommend what type of AFRB is necessary: full, mini (tailored attendance), or paper. A template and more information can be found at the AF PM&AE AF Portal Page For ACAT ID and ACAT IAMs, AFRBs are used to develop the AF corporate consensus prior to an OSD Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) (pre-dab within AF) or Information Technology Acquisition Board (ITAB). The AFRB should be conducted no later than two weeks prior to last OSD Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT). The SAE determines if an ACAT ID or ACAT IAM program requires an AFRB PEOs and DAOs execute a tailored AFRB process for delegated ACAT II and ACAT III programs Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP) The Acquisition Strategy Panel supports the SAE and other MDAs. ASPs are forums that evaluate proposed acquisition strategies to ensure all key viable alternatives have been considered and that the best recommendation is provided to the SAE and/or the program s MDA for approval The AF PM&AE is the SAE-chaired ASP process owner and secretariat for all ACAT I/IA and non-delegated ACAT II programs The field ACE offices are the ASP process owner and secretariat for all non- SAE chaired ACAT II and III PEO/DAO programs Information concerning SAE-chaired ASPs, such as the current draft template for briefings, can be found at the AF PM&AE AF Portal Page. Additionally, similar information pertaining to non-sae chaired ASPs can be found at each of the respective Field ACE websites which are accessible on the AF PM&AE AF Portal Page.

64 64 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Additional information regarding general ASP requirements can be found in AFFARS , Acquisition Strategy Panels (ASPs) Coordination of Requirements Document Used in Conjunction with RFP. All acquisition programs will coordinate the requirements document used in conjunction with a RFP with the requiring Lead Command prior to the release of the final RFP. The level of coordination will be based on the program's ACAT as follows: (Note: Lead Command Commander may delegate Lead Command coordination no lower than one level below designated level): A Systems Requirements Document (SRD) shall be used whenever warfighter/user capabilities and/or requirements must be translated into acquisition requirements for a new contract in support of a system/sub-system specification. For existing contracts, the guidance in MIL-HDBK-520 should be used whenever warfighter/user capabilities and/or requirements must be translated into acquisition requirements. For additional information on preparation of an SRD refer to MIL-HDBK-520, Systems Requirements Document Guidance. Guidance instructions in MIL-HDBK-520 are tailorable as required Design Reviews (Preliminary Design Review (PDR)/Critical Design Review (CDR)) Reports and Assessments. RESERVED Program Determination, Delegation, and Air Force Acquisition Master List (AML). Note: Until updated and throughout this document, the APML and the AML refer to the same list. All roles and responsibilities associated with the APML are transferred to the AML SAF/AQ will make program determination and assignment to Program Executive Officer (PEO)/Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO) portfolios based on acquisition category (defined in DoDI , Enclosure 3, Table 1). ACAT III has no funding floor and encompasses all acquisition programs not included within ACAT I, IA or II The AML shall contain all Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) 3600 (Budget Activity (BA) 4 thru BA7), Procurement (30XX) programs and technology projects (as defined in DoDI , Enclosure 3) meeting any of the following criteria: ACAT I, ACAT IA, ACAT II, ACAT III program, or newly identified materiel solution responding to a Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Air Force Requirements Oversight Council, Air Force 1067 validated requirement, or top down directed activity as identified in AFI , Capabilities-Based Requirements Development Technology project funded with aforementioned RDT&E 3600 BA4 through BA7 appropriations in excess of $10M in total funding Potential materiel solution that has entered into the acquisition framework by a Materiel Development Decision Acquisition Decision Memorandum Any effort designated as Special Interest by the Service Acquisition Executive or the Office of the Secretary of Defense Any effort designated as a program by the DAE or SAE Immediately following determination a program meets criteria in paragraph above, PEOs/DAOs will coordinate with the Capability Directorates and submit to

65 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST SAF/AQX any new programs and technology efforts, proposed updates, or recommended changes to the AML Removal may occur upon disposal, termination, program completion, system/program transfer to a sustainment portfolio, or as directed by the Service Acquisition Executive. PEOs/DAOs/Capability Directorates will submit requests for removal from the AML to SAF/AQX Inclusion on the AML does not constitute program new start approval and does not constitute authority to commit, obligate, or expend funds Replenishment spare procurements, spares procurements and commodity buys that replace existing stock are exempt from inclusion on the AML Acquisition special access programs and technology efforts managed in accordance with DODD , Special Access Program (SAP) Policy, AFPD 16-7, Special Access Programs, and AFI , Special Access Programs, are exempt from posting to the AML Sustainment Program Master List (SPML). HQ AFMC is responsible for maintaining the SPML for all non-space sustainment programs HQ AFMC shall update the SPML at least annually for all non-space sustainment programs PEOs or ALC Commanders will submit to HQ AFMC any proposed updates/recommended changes to the current SPML for final approval by AFMC/CC Request for Reclassification of Acquisition Programs Categorization. For reclassification of an ACAT I or IA program to a lower ACAT, the SAE must submit requests to USD(AT&L), or the OASD/NII or DOD CIO, whichever applies. The request shall identify the reasons for the reduction in ACAT. The PM shall notify the PEO/DAO and the SAE when it is necessary to raise the ACAT category from an ACAT III or ACAT II to a higher level ACAT category. This notification shall be made immediately upon determining that the program meets the requirements of the higher category as defined in DODI If the program qualifies as an ACAT I program, the program is assumed to be an ACAT ID or IAM until the SAE requests and the USD(AT&L) or OASD/NII agrees to categorize the program as an ACAT IC or ACAT IAC. USD(AT&L), OASD/NII, or the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) may reclassify an acquisition program as a pre-mdap/mais or as an ACAT ID or IAM at any time Life Cycle Acquisition and Sustainment Reporting. Life cycle metrics are critical elements in characterizing the progress in a program s achievement of its goals. PMs will use life cycle metrics, including sustainment metrics, to evaluate program status and determine if programs are meeting the weapon system life cycle requirements. Objectives for the metrics shall be established early in the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase, refined throughout the Technology Development and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phases, and then carried through as program baseline goals until system retirement All programs and technology projects listed on the AML shall initiate and maintain program data within the System Metric and Reporting Tool (SMART) acquisition management system. Program data requirements are identified in sections and

66 66 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST All programs and technology projects listed on the AML are required to use the Comprehensive Cost and Requirement (CCaR) system. The CCaR system will update SMART and Executive CCaR on a monthly basis All programs and technology projects listed on the AML are required to enter basic program data into SMART. This data shall be entered at initial entry onto the AML and updated prior to every major program milestone and/or following any significant program change. The data shall be reviewed and updated at least annually prior to 1 March. The minimal data entry into SMART will consist of the following: Name and attributes (acronym, full name, type, acquisition phase, ACAT, AML, base year (for funding) Key Personnel (at a minimum PEO/DAO, System Program Manager, Product Support Manager, Program Element Monitor, Chief Engineer, and the SMART POC) Background (short description of effort) Schedule module (minimally MDD, MS-A, PDR, MS-B, CDR, MS-C, FRP, RAA/FDD, IOC, FD, FOC and any other Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) events) Performance (minimally Key Performance Parameters and any other APB parameters) Contract Data (minimally contract(s) name, number, contractor, location) MARs are required for all ACAT programs and technology projects with thenyear funding greater than $30 million in RDT&E (3600) or $50 million in procurement (30XX) over the life of the program. MAR reporting will begin the month following placement on the AML. ACAT I and II program MARs will consist of all charts referenced in the sub-paragraphs below. ACAT III program MARs will consist of all charts below with the exception of the Program Schedule and One Year Critical Path Schedule. Programs entered on the AML as a result of a Materiel Development Decision Acquisition Decision Memorandum should contact SAF/AQXR for guidance Program Assessment and Top 10 Issues Program Data: Contract Performance, Schedule, Funding and Technical Performance Contract Information Additional Assessments Probability of Program Success (PoPS) Windshield Cost Reduction and Small Business Initiatives Program Schedule One Year Critical Path Schedule.

67 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST MAR reporting is not required for programs and technology projects with thenyear funding less than $30 million in RDT&E (3600) or $50 million in procurement (30XX) over the life of the program With the approval of SAF/AQX, System Program Managers may roll up a Weapon System s multiple AML programs into a single MAR. Programs should submit roll up requests to SAF/AQXR The program decision authority will review and approve each MAR in their portfolio by the 8th working day of each month Programs may only terminate MAR reporting with the approval of SAF/AQX. Programs can submit a request for termination through SAF/AQXR when all contracts are 90% complete and/or all program investment funds (RDT&E and Procurement) are 90% expended ACAT designated programs shall follow DOD 5000 series for DOD and Congressional reporting requirements The PM shall define, measure, report, and make programmatic decisions using appropriate life cycle outcome-oriented metrics. In all cases, the metrics tracked should be aligned with the organization s strategy and objectives as well as provide actionable insight into how well the organization is achieving those objectives The PM shall collect, report, and analyze sustainment metrics to measure program life cycle sustainment outcomes that satisfy the sustainment KPP/ Key System Attributes (KSAs) defined by the user in accordance with the JCIDS Manual. This will include as a minimum, materiel availability, materiel reliability, total ownership cost (TOC) and mean down time (MDT). Additional sustainment metric calculation information can be found in AFPAM Materiel availability shall measure the percentage of the total inventory of a weapon system s operational capability (ready for tasking) based on materiel condition for performing an assigned mission at a given time. Materiel availability for aircraft will be measured in accordance with AFI , Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management Materiel reliability shall measure the probability that the system will perform without failure over a specific interval. Materiel reliability for aircraft will be measured in accordance with AFI TOC shall measure total costs as identified in the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group s (CAIG) Operating and Support (O&S) Cost Estimating Structure. TOC will be measured referencing OSD CAIG Operating and Support Cost-Estimating Guide, Chapter 4, elements 2.0 through Mean down time shall measure the average total downtime required to restore an asset to its full operational capabilities. Mean down time (MDT) for aircraft shall be measured by combining Total Not Mission Capable - Maintenance (TNMCM) time and Total Not Mission Capable - Supply (TNMCS) time in accordance with AFI Life Cycle Expectation Management. The PM shall ensure effective expectation management is an integral part of the system integrated life cycle management strategy.

68 68 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Successful expectation management will reduce the number of significant issues and surprises that hurt the acquisition community s credibility with Congress, OSD, and AF leadership. The roles and responsibilities of expectation management cut across the acquisition, sustainment, and operational user communities. Program changes or other influences that drive expectation adjustments must be made clear to the most senior leaders who have responsibility for the success of a program. Expectation management documents capture existing validated requirements and agreements among program stakeholders. Documents such as a Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) or the Program Management Agreement (PMA) will be accessible from an authoritative source to provide the basis for communicating expectations between stakeholders Total Ownership Costs (TOC). Total ownership cost of a system encompasses all life cycle costs including development, production, operations, support, and disposal costs At a minimum TOC consists of the following cost elements as defined in the CAIG Operating and Support (O&S) Cost Estimating Structure: Unit Operations (2.1.1 only); Energy (fuel, petroleum, oil, lubricants, electricity); Maintenance (All); Sustaining Support (all except 4.1, System Specific Training); Continuing System Improvements (all). Fuel costs will be based on the fully burdened cost of fuel. Costs are to be included regardless of funding source, and the value should cover the planned life cycle timeframe, consistent with the timeframe used in the Materiel Availability KPP. Sources of reference data, cost models, parametric cost estimating relationships, and other estimating techniques or tools must be identified in supporting analysis. Programs must plan for maintaining the traceability of costs incurred to estimates and must plan for testing and evaluation The PM shall seek to reduce costs of operating DOD systems while improving readiness, and will be held accountable for clear and timely articulation of actions to reduce life cycle costs for their systems Consideration shall be given to both operational and life cycle economic impacts when evaluating technical trade-offs or allocating resources among research and development, acquisition, operating and support costs. TOC must be appropriately estimated and documented to provide the decision makers the needed information for evaluating options To reduce the cost of fielded systems while still meeting the program s technical requirements, the PM shall continuously look for opportunities to improve reliability and maintainability; reduce logistics footprints and supply chain response times; and ensure competitive sourcing of product support resulting in streamlining and overhead reductions. Initiatives to consider include Value Engineering (VE), Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), and Reduction of Total Ownership Cost (R-TOC) Risk-Based Program Management and Decision Making Programmatic Risk. PMs shall pursue a comprehensive integrated risk analysis throughout life cycle and shall prepare and maintain a risk management plan. Risks include, but are not limited to, cost, schedule, performance, technical, product data access, technology protection, integration, and Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) risks. These risk areas are influenced by factors such as program stability, manning, contractor execution, the chosen technologies, intelligence supportability, system design and

69 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST manufacturing processes. Methodologies used to manage risk shall include Risk Management Plans (RMP), program risk reviews, risk-based source selection, technical risk management, Probability of Program Success (PoPS), and the DoD Standard Practice for System Safety prescribed in MILSTD882D Probability of Program Success (PoPS). All MAR reporting programs shall use PoPS to provide program management, at all levels, with leading indicators of risks that can impact program success. Programs shall update PoPS through the SMART database. The PoPS Operations Guide, which contains extensive instructions on completing PoPS and populating the PoPS windshield chart, is available at each Center Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) or through the Acquisition Chief Process Office Risk-based Source Selection. The source selection approach, as part of the acquisition strategy, shall be developed to reduce risk over the life cycle of the program. This includes identifying the strengths, weaknesses, domain experience, process capability, development capacity, and past performance for all developer team members with significant development responsibilities. Source selection guidance and procedures are contained in FAR Part 15, DFARS Part 215, AFFARS and AFFARS Mandatory Procedure To realize high confidence source selection, the Request for proposal (RFP) and source selection approach should require the following: Expectations for warfighters, users, decision-makers, evaluation teams, and industry from the outset of the source selection. This includes an understanding by all of the desired end-state and clear expectations to industry on proposal requirements and timelines A clear understanding of the methods of estimating costs for the program including uncertainty analysis and verification requirements. The government most probable cost estimate may need to be verified by a certified cost estimator in accordance with SAF/FM policy/guidance Identification of the key discriminators from among the mission requirements. These must represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision and support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals Establishment of the minimum performance or capability requirements against which offers will be judged. For contracts after MS B this includes minimum prototype performance Technical Risk Management. Chief/Lead Engineers have execution responsibility for technical risk management, and shall utilize Systems Engineering throughout the life cycle, in accordance with AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, to manage program technical risks. Technical risk management includes risk based prototype planning and development All programs conduct Technology Readiness Assessments (TRA) per DODI and are encouraged to conduct Manufacturing Readiness Assessments (MRA) in preparation for program Milestones.

70 70 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Technology Readiness Assessments (TRA). The TRA is the primary tool to assess the maturity of critical technology elements at MS B and C. For MDAPs, the TRA provides information to support MDA certification that the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment prior to MS B approval per USC Title 10 ( 2366b). If the MDAP is initiated at a later decision point, MDA certification is required prior to that decision point. Technologies that are demonstrated in a relevant environment are at a Technology Readiness Level 6 (TRL 6) (reference DOD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook, July 2009, for additional guidance.) All acquisition programs on the APML shall complete an objective, measurable TRA for MDA consideration prior to MS B and MS C Critical Technology Elements (CTE) (reference DOD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook) shall be demonstrated prior to MS B in a relevant environment (preferably an operational environment) and matured for the production of each increment of capability prior to MS C. The PM and Chief/Lead Engineers will incorporate appropriate technology demonstrations in program acquisition documentation to support milestone decision points The MDA directs, reviews, and approves TRAs for delegated ACAT II and III programs SAF/AQR directs MS B and C TRAs for Air Force programs where the SAE or DAE is the MDA. SAF/AQR reviews and endorses MS B and C TRAs to SAF/AQ for SAE programs and to DUSD (S&T) for DUSD (AT&L) and OASD/NII programs. The results of space TRAs for MS B and C are forwarded to the MDA and Independent Program Assessment Team (IPAT) leader The PM shall contact SAF/AQR 12 months prior to MS B for MDAP programs to coordinate TRA preparations The PM shall address technology maturity in the solicitation supporting source selections conducted in conjunction with a MS B. The measure of merit that the technology in a program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment is that all Critical Technology Elements (CTE) are at TRL 6 or greater. The PM shall include language in solicitations for the EMD phase advising offerors that (1) the government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal is based on CTEs that have not been demonstrated in a relevant environment, and (2) that offerors will be required to specify the technology readiness level of the CTEs on which their proposal is based and to provide reports documenting how those CTEs have been demonstrated in a relevant environment Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA). The MRA including identifying Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) were developed to provide an understanding of manufacturing risk and maturity similar to TRLs. MRLs and MRAs can foster better decision making, program planning and program execution through improved understanding and management of manufacturing risk. See Acquisition Community Connection, for more information.

71 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH). Although an integral part of a program s overall Risk Management effort throughout the system s life cycle, ESOH risk management has some unique requirements imposed by DODI The PM and Lead/Chief Engineer shall use the DOD Standard Practice for System Safety, MIL-STD-882D, to manage ESOH risks as part of the Systems Engineering (SE) process in all developmental and sustaining engineering activities The PM should try to eliminate ESOH hazards where possible and minimize the ESOH risks where the hazards cannot be eliminated ESOH hazards and risks include those resulting from routine system operations and maintenance (O&M); from mishaps or system or subsystem failures; and from potential impacts to program cost, schedule, and performance from requirements to comply with ESOH laws and regulations The PM shall document the strategy for integrating ESOH considerations into the SE process in a Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Formal ESOH Risk Acceptance. The PM shall document that the associated risks have been accepted by the following acceptance authorities: the SAE for high risks, PEO-level for serious risks, and the PM for medium and low risks prior to exposing people, equipment, or the environment to known system-related ESOH hazards. Formal risk acceptance requirements apply throughout the life of the system High risk acceptance packages shall be coordinated with the user representative, SAF/AQR, and AF/SE before submission to the SAE for acceptance The PM shall ensure each High risk acceptance package describes the hazard; predicted risk consequence and probability; available mitigation measures; costs, or other limitations to mitigation implementation; proposed mitigation measures; resulting net mishap risk after implementation of proposed mitigation; the proposed acceptance period; and an assessment of the expected losses for the period of acceptance The period of a risk acceptance should be either the remaining life of the system if no mitigations are proposed, or the period for implementation of the proposed mitigation(s) throughout entire fleet plus sufficient time to validate the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation(s) The risk assessments that support High risk acceptance packages must conform to the guidance in MIL-STD-882D and AFI , The US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, Attachment The PM shall report the status of all applicable ESOH technology requirements at all program and technical reviews In addition to inclusion in the ESOH hazard tracking system of identified hazardous materials either imbedded in the system or used for system O&M, the program will provide additional information in the tracking system on the locations, amounts, disposal requirements, and special training requirements for the hazardous materials. Program Offices developing or sustaining aircraft will provide this information to the Air

72 72 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA) responsible for including these data in TO E-9, Aerospace Emergency Rescue and Mishap Response Information (Emergency Services) The PM shall assist the system testers, operators, and maintainers in the application of Operational Risk Management (ORM) to those systems, to include the assessment of hazards and potential mitigation measures. Refer to AFI , Operational Risk Management, for more information on ORM The PM shall provide system-specific ESOH hazard and risk analyses and data to support using commands and T&E organizations National Environmental Policy Act/Environmental Impact Analysis Process (NEPA/EIAP) and E.O , Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, documentation requirements The PM shall support the mishap investigations of all Class A and B mishaps involving their systems, provide analyses of the ESOH hazards that contributed to the mishap under investigation, and make recommendations for materiel risk mitigations measures, especially those designed to minimize the potential for human error Intelligence Risk Management. Center Intelligence Offices will assist Program Manager s in their assessment and reporting of the intelligence metrics in PoPs Product Support Risk Management. The Acquisition Sustainment Tool Kit (AS Tool Kit), Logistics Health Assessment (LHA), and Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) are three product support/logistics life cycle tools designed to help program managers identify, track, and mitigate product support risks The AS Tool Kit provides program office personnel a road map of logistics processes from Milestone A through disposal. It identifies tasks critical to successful integration of product support planning that are required by current DOD and Air Force guidance. The AS Tool Kit ensures disciplined product support planning is accomplished and provides a baseline of product support activities to support individual program detailed planning. It also provides a method to effectively and efficiently plan, organize, and manage integrated life cycle logistics tasks. See Section 3D and AFPAM for additional information on AS Tool Kit LHA provides a standard method for program office personnel to assess product support and to highlight risks. It creates a site picture of program logistics health at any point in the system s life cycle and is tailorable for individual programs. LHA provides a mechanism for assessing, measuring, and recording, logistics planning and execution information, and can be accessed through System Metric and Reporting Tool (SMART) ILAs are an objective assessment of product support planning and execution in preparation for major milestones B, C, and Full Rate Production. They are performed at the discretion of the MDA by an independent team of subject matter experts (members not in the direct chain of command for the program being assessed). Their purpose is to highlight risks and impacts associated with up-front decisions, cuts, and trade-offs so senior leaders can make more informed decisions.

73 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Earned Value Management (EVM). Earned Value Management is a program management tool that integrates the technical, cost, and schedule parameters of a project into a Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB). It measures how efficiently resources are consumed against what was planned to be consumed to meet technical goals The PM shall integrate EVM into their management processes and contracts in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and DODI When EVM is required, the PM shall conduct Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs), receive and analyze EVM data from the contractor, perform detailed analysis of EVM data using procedures detailed in the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) EVM Implementation Guide, understand the PMB, and use EVM as a management tool. As part of the analysis process, the PM should reconcile Contract Performance Reports (CPR) report formats and reconcile Contract Funds Status Reports (CFSR) to the CPR, if the contractor is not required to do so. The contractor has ownership of the Earned Value Management System (EVMS), is expected to maintain compliance with the EVMS standard and uses EVM as an internal management tool DCMA is designated as the DOD Executive Agent for EVMS. The DCMA is responsible for ensuring the integrity and application effectiveness of contractor EVMS EVM applicability and implementation is required based on the dollar threshold and type of contract. The requirement for EVM applies to cost or incentive contracts, subcontracts, intra-government work agreements, and other agreements that meet certain dollar thresholds prescribed in DFARS, unless a waiver is obtained from the MDA The PM shall implement EVM on applicable contracts within acquisition, upgrade, modification, or materiel maintenance programs, including highly sensitive classified programs, major construction programs, and automated information systems (AIS) The PM shall implement EVM on applicable contracts when the following exist: (1) the prime contractor or one or more subcontractors is a non-u.s. source; (2) contract work is to be performed in government facilities; or (3) the contract is awarded to a specialized organization such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) The PM shall implement EVM on applicable contracts designated as major capital acquisitions in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Part 7, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of Capital Assets The PM shall ensure EVMS compliance or validation based on the dollar threshold and type of contract. The EVMS compliance standard is the latest release of the 32 Guidelines of American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard ANSI/EIA-748, Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) Standard. Reference information is contained within the standard document, however actual compliance and if required, validation, is determined by the DCMA. The DCMA s guidance may be found in the Earned Value Management Implementation Guide and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. Consult the AF EVM IPT CoP website for the latest AF-specific working-level guidance and links to additional resources.

74 74 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM shall ensure EVMS reporting for each contract, unless otherwise specified. AF requires that the resulting level-one data for each contract with EVM be reported in SMART. Programs that are considered to be MDAPs are expected to report EVM data in the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES). SMART and DAES data will be reconcilable to each other Performance Based Contracting. Performance based contracting is a procurement strategy that structures all aspects of an acquisition around the purpose of the work to be performed, as opposed to either the manner in which the contractor must perform the work or the processes that must be used. This strategy leverages the ingenuity of industry while providing the government with access to the best commercial products, services, and processes across the program life cycle The PM shall consider performance based contracting to the maximum practical extent, unless exempted by the Services Designated Official (defined in Chapter 4) The contracting officer has the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them. A contract defines the relationship between the Government and the industry partner. It sets forth the contractual requirements that the contractor is obligated to meet Internal Controls for Procurements on Behalf of the DOD by Certain Non-Defense Agencies. Program managers shall only place an order, make a purchase, or otherwise procure property or services in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold through a nondefense agency in any fiscal year, if the head of the non-defense agency has certified that the agency will comply with defense procurement requirements for the fiscal year. The Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) may make exceptions to this requirement or extend such determinations if it is determined, in writing, that it is necessary in the interest of the DOD to continue to procure property and services through the noncertified non-defense agency Selection of Contractors for Subsystems and Components. PMs shall determine the approach to establish and maintain access to competitive suppliers for critical areas at the system, subsystem and component level. Refer to Subcontractor Management, Make or Buy Plans, FAR 7.105(b)(11), FAR and FAR New Start Notification. A New Start is any program, subprogram, modification, project, or subproject not previously justified to and approved by Congress during the appropriations process for the fiscal year involved. When a determination has been made that the efforts undertaken meet the New Start criteria, Congress must be notified via either a Letter of Notification or DD (Prior Approval Reprogramming Action). The methods of notification to be used are delineated in AFI , Budget Guidance and Procedures, Volume I and DOD R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume III Chapter New Start Validation Responsibilities. The PM, along with the respective Program Office Chief Financial Officer (CFO)/or Program Control Chief (PCC), is required to document and validate that efforts underway have obtained approval for new start or have been adequately assessed and determined not to meet the new start criteria before any funds

75 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST are obligated for programs not categorized as commodity programs. Pre-contract cost agreements are subject to new start criteria and require completion of the validation form. RFPs, proposal evaluation, and contract negotiations are part of normal Program Office activities and therefore do not represent new start activities Where there is no PM, such as technology development efforts, validation is the responsibility of the Technical Director (TD) Refer to AFI , Budget Guidance and Procedures, Volume I and DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) Volume III Chapter 6 for additional guidance on the key points delineated in the Validation Form at Attachment 3 of this publication. If no item in the Validation Form (Attachment 3 of this publication) is marked YES, then the PM shall work with their respective Program Element Monitor (PEM) and/or Capability Director (CD) at the HAF to coordinate the initiation of the appropriate New Start Notification package (i.e., Letter of Notification/ Packages). Once the Validation Form is completed it should be filed as part of the program s contract file Validation Form Exemptions. Funding actions for the following are excluded from the requirement to complete the validation form prior to obligating funds. The exemption from completing the validation form does not absolve activities from complying with all regulations pertaining to New Start Notifications in the event that a New Start is planned for initiation All Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research (6.2) efforts, and Advanced Technology Development (6.3) efforts, UNLESS initiating a new research project (budget program activity code) not listed in the applicable descriptive summary (R-2 exhibit). These exemptions DO NOT include program elements (PEs) beginning with a 63 designation, but falling under the 6.4, Advanced Component Development and Prototypes, budget program activity code All Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase I and II efforts Incremental funding actions for ongoing efforts if no change in required work Contract changes pursuant to clauses that do not change the work requirement of the contract (i.e., award fees and some price adjustments) Program management and administrative efforts directed at business management and Program Office operations Reference AFI Volume I for details on the New Start Notification process, procedures, and reporting requirements. In addition, individuals can contact SAF/AQXR, AF PM&AE and SAF/FM for additional guidance and/or help regarding New Starts specific issues Modification Management. For the purposes of this instruction, a modification is defined as a change to the form, fit, function, or interface (F3I) of an in-service, configurationmanaged Air Force asset. Modifications are identified as capability modifications or sustainment modifications and can be either temporary or permanent. All modifications must be coordinated through a formal configuration review/control process and implemented in accordance with HAF publications. All approved modifications shall be implemented by a PM or project manager who will be the designated individual with the responsibility for, and authority to accomplish

76 76 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 modification program objectives for the development, production, and sustainment of materiel modifications that satisfy user operational needs. Additional information, terms and guidance governing AF modification management is contained in AFI , Modification Program Management. Further guidance on capability modifications can be found in AFI , Capabilities-Based Requirements Modification efforts that are designated ACAT programs or activities on the APML shall comply with all program requirements commensurate with their ACAT level. Modification efforts on the SPML shall comply with program requirements as identified by the AFMC/CC or designee. Modification efforts not on the APML or SPML will establish baseline technical, cost, and schedule objectives per AFI Limitation on Modification of Certain Items (a.k.a. Sunset Provisions). 10 USC 2244a limits the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) from carrying out a modification to an aircraft, weapon, or other item of equipment that the SECAF plans to retire or otherwise dispose of within five years after the date on which the modification, if carried out, would be completed The prohibition does not apply under the following situations: A modification for which the cost is less than $100, The reusable items of value installed on the item of equipment as part of the modification will, upon retirement or disposal of the modified item, be removed from the item, refurbished, and installed on another piece of equipment and the cost of this modification (including cost of removal and refurbishment of reusable items of value) is less than $1M The modification is a safety modification The SECAF may waive the prohibition if the SECAF determines that carrying out the modification is in the national security interest of the U.S. Such a waiver requires notification to congressional defense committees in writing Program Terminations. It may be necessary to terminate a program for a variety of reasons including a Presidential, Congressional, DOD or an AF Leadership decision, change in threat, poor contractor performance or withdrawal of funding Upon the termination decision, the PM shall notify the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) and Senior Procurement Executive of all ACAT program terminations. The termination decision is normally documented in a Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) Upon termination decision, the PM shall develop a termination strategy to describe how to close the program down in an expeditious, orderly manner with the least impact to the government. The termination strategy shall at a minimum address status of contracting activities, status of contract, location of the Termination Contracting Officer, the most advantageous way to conclude open contracts, termination costs and unliquidated obligations, potential for claims against the government, disposition of technology, disposition of accumulated equipment, organizations responsibilities, enterprise/architectural impacts, and reassignment of Government personnel The termination strategy shall be approved by the MDA.

77 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Materiel Fielding. Materiel fielding is the process by which AF weapon systems and equipment are delivered to and put into service by operational units in the field. The central element of this process is the requirement for PMs to plan and coordinate materiel fielding requirements and activities with materiel developers, product support/sustainment organizations, and the lead/using command(s), well in advance of required materiel delivery dates, and in a manner that enables all parties to identify, understand, and resolve issues associated with the materiel to be fielded. The overarching objective of the materiel fielding process is to ensure sufficient time is available and required investments are made to develop the capabilities and infrastructure that will be necessary to operate and sustain the materiel once it is fielded. The materiel fielding process is a collaborative activity that is primarily executed by the PM, with significant support from AF/DOD product support organizations and the user(s) For all programs on the APML, designated space programs, or at the SPML PM discretion, the PM shall develop and maintain a Materiel Fielding Plan (MFP) from program initiation through the production and deployment phase. The MFP will include and describe the materiel fielding-related requirements, methodologies, and timelines contained in the user s approved capability requirements document, all fielding-related activities or actions plans to be executed during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) and production phases, and all organizational responsibilities and points of contact associated with the planning for, and the delivery of, the materiel to its intended user(s). The PM shall coordinate the MFP with the lead/using command(s) and other stakeholder organizations that will interface with, sustain, or provide support (e.g. training) for the materiel being developed. At the PM s discretion and with MDA approval, the MFP may be a stand-alone document, an annex to the program LCMP, or embedded within the LCMP itself At MS/KDP C and all subsequent production decision reviews the PM shall update the MFP as necessary to reflect the materiel fielding-related requirements specified in the user s CPD, or any changes in the user s system/product delivery and acceptance criteria, the user s operational/mission employment and product support concepts, or the user s requirements to support operator and maintenance training (e.g. Required Assets Available), Initial Operational Capability (IOC), and Full Operational Capability (FOC) At MS C and all subsequent production decision reviews the PM shall update the MFP as necessary to reflect the materiel fielding-related requirements specified in the user s CPD, or any changes in the user s system/product delivery and acceptance criteria, the user s operational/mission employment and product support concepts, or the user s requirements to support operator and maintenance training (e.g. Required Assets Available), Initial Operational Capability (IOC), and Full Operational Capability (FOC) DELETED Consult AFPAM for additional guidance and information related to the materiel fielding process. This pamphlet provides detailed planning criteria and considerations that PMs can use to develop, coordinate, and implement MFPs (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Materiel Fielding Process. Procedures provided in this supplement identify the minimum actions and documents that must be completed by the acquisition agency/sponsoring agency, or site, to successfully field mission capabilities to the AFISRA and/or subordinate organizations. The list is not intended to specify every milestone that will be taken in every deployment, but provides a means to ensure users

78 78 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 receive a supportable capability that meets operational requirements. AFPAM , Chapter 10 further explains the materiel fielding process (Added-AFISRA) Materiel Fielding Notification. The AFISRA staff office, authoritative Wing/Group or Center, or responsible program manager will notify the site (via message) once a decision is made, but not less than 6 months prior to fielding a mission capability (Added-AFISRA) Information copies to AFISRA staff (A1, A2, A3, A4/7, A5/8/9, and A6) are also required (Added-AFISRA) Organizations will refer any component attempting to install a mission capability without prior notification to the authoritative Wing/Group or Center, and AFISRA staff (Added-AFISRA) Notification Requirements Information. In order to assist the site in successfully integrating a proposed capability into the existing site architecture, the system fielding notification will include the following information: (Added-AFISRA) Mission Capability/System Name (Added-AFISRA) Brief Mission Description (Added-AFISRA) System-level Architecture and Equipment List (Added-AFISRA) Acquisition Activity and Life-Cycle Support points of contact (Added-AFISRA) Proposed Program Schedule or Milestones (Added-AFISRA) Materiel Fielding Checklist. In participation or coordination with the acquisition activity and authoritative wing/group or center, the site will ensure all applicable milestones are met, documented, and an audit trail established. Table 3.0 identifies the minimum requirements the acquisition activity and/or site must accomplish. All milestone dates are PRIOR TO SHIPMENT unless otherwise indicated. Table 3.3. (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Materiel Fielding Checklist. DOCUMENT/EVENT MILESTONE STATUS or DATE COMPLETED Mission Capability Fielding Notification 6-12 months CONOP* 2 weeks prior to Site Survey LCL Decisions/Minutes, i.e. Maintenance Concept, Life-Cycle 2 weeks prior to Site Survey Support requirements, associated LCL deliverables, etc.* LCMP/ALSP/LCSP/LSP (Draft or 2 weeks prior to Site Final)* Configuration Management Plan Survey 2 weeks prior to Site Survey

79 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)* Site Survey** Site Preparation Work (outside Ops Area)** SPRIP* Engineering Drawing Package (assembly & connection drawing)* Materiel Release Review (Status Review of Events/Documents)** OT&E Test Plan (Site Specific)* System Security Authorization Agreement (Initial) or System Security Plan (SSP)* Training Plan and documentation, i.e. hand-outs, manuals, plans, etc.* TDY Planning Message Developmental, Test & Evaluation (DT&E) I Results* Rack Elevation Configuration Audit** System Training (Ops/Maintenance/Sys Adm.)** DT&E II* Operational and Logistics Assessment** IOC/System Commissioning Confirmation (SCC)** IOC Message (from Site) Updated Eng. Drawings from Red-lines IOC/SCC Deficiency (Follow-ups) FOC Message (from Site) 2 weeks prior to Site Survey days 120 days 90 days 90 days 60 days days days 30 days 30 days Prior to shipment At installation At installation After installation After successful DT&E II & Training Immediately after OT&E 14 days after OT&E 30 days after IOC Every 30 days after IOC-as needed At closure of deficiencies * = Requires AFISRA Staff Office, Wing/Group or Center participation (as applicable) and site review/coordination prior to established milestones. ** = Activity/actions must be accomplished in conjunction with Wing/Group or Center (as applicable) and site personnel. *** = List of Deliverables obtained from support plan annexes or developed from LCL meetings, site survey results or discussions between site and acquisition activity personnel (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA Mission Capability Acceptance Requirements. Upon completion of installation testing of a new or modified mission capability, representatives from the acquisition and gaining organization(s) shall jointly review and document: the status of the installation; results of testing; status/effectiveness of training; availability of previously agreed to support deliverables (i.e., spares, training, documentation, etc); and, open discrepancies levied against the capability with proposed

80 80 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 corrective actions. Following this assessment, the responsible commander or designated representative will make a decision to accept (conditionally or unconditionally) or not accept the capability (Added-AFISRA) Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Acceptance. The responsible commander retains authority to delay acceptance until resolution of critical deficiencies (i.e., installation, supportability, safety, training, etc. shortfalls) (Added-AFISRA) If the capability is accepted (conditionally or unconditionally) the appropriate certifications must be signed and an IOC message released (Attachment 6) (Added-AFISRA) The IOC message will outline/document the results of the operational and logistics assessment. Document liens against a system, if any, in the conditional IOC acceptance message, SCC, Materiel Fielding Process report(s), and/or the AF Form 1261, Communication and Information Systems Acceptance Certificate, as applicable. (NOTE: Impact of liens are rated as follows: Minor - a work around exists/no mission loss; Major - mission loss might be experienced; or Critical - mission loss is/will be experienced) (Added-AFISRA) The IOC message should be formatted as outlined in Attachment 6 of this supplement or as prescribed by the deploying activity (i.e., NSA, DIA, AFMC, etc.) (Added-AFISRA) Full Operational Capability (FOC). FOC is achieved when all deficiencies identified in the IOC message are resolved (Added-AFISRA) Management of AFISRA Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) Requirements. The QRC process prescribes a variation to the normal acquisition cycle for those mission capabilities having short delivery schedules. It applies specifically to QRC requirements submitted out-of-cycle, to include modification proposal QRCs. Acquisition organizations deploying QRC capabilities to AFISRA field sites should endeavor to meet materiel fielding objectives as prescribed in AFPAM ; however, special provisions may be made to effect initial support requirements (Added-AFISRA) A QRC materiel fielding plan will be documented as a MOU/MOA message (Attachment 7). The message, as minimum should include the following information: (Added-AFISRA) Mission or Signal of Interest/Data to be Collected (Added-AFISRA) Mutually agreed System Location (verify rack space, power, air, etc. availability) (Added-AFISRA) QRC expiration date (Added-AFISRA) Deployment liens at time of installation, office of primary responsibility for resolution and anticipated date for lien closure (Added-AFISRA) Acquisition organization s acceptance of risk associated with extended downtimes due to lack of formal support deliverables

81 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (i.e., training, spares, technical documentation, etc.) (Added-AFISRA) QRC MOU/MOA messages will be provided to AFISRA staff offices, appropriate Wing/Group, external organizations, and AFCO when applicable (Added-AFISRA) No capability should remain in a QRC status beyond 1 year of initial deployment (Added-AFISRA) Approval of QRC for a permanent installation will follow established AF, SCC or external DoD organization(s) acquisition and sustainment life cycle management standards (Added-AFISRA) Minimum QRC Logistics Support Requirements. When a decision is made to deploy a QRC to an AFISRA site, the authoritative Center, Wing, AFCO, or external agency (as applicable) must provide or ensure the acquisition organization provides the site with the following documentation or deliverables: (Added-AFISRA) Project or Mission Capability Name (Added-AFISRA) CONOPs, to include draft copy of tasking for Intercept Tasking Database (ITDB) or applicable document (Added-AFISRA) System Security Plan to include accreditation details (Added-AFISRA) Interim Support Plan which should identify as a minimum: (Added-AFISRA) Maintenance concept (Added-AFISRA) Sparing (Added-AFISRA) Training and training materials (i.e. user guides, system manuals, etc.), as required (Added-AFISRA) Responsible off-site repair facility and repair/return procedures (Added-AFISRA) Points of contacts (Added-AFISRA) NSA/CSS QRC capabilities deployed to the AFISRA and/or subordinate sites shall adhere to the deployment process prescribed in applicable NSA/CSS Policies and Policy Manuals (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA cryptologic field sites, managed under the Position Equipment Table, will add QRC to unit authorizations as prescribed in AFISRA Instruction , Maintenance Manpower Management/Position Equipment Table (PET) (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA/A4M will coordinate with NSA/BA02 to ensure assignment of a temporary Position Equipment Identifier (POEI) to ensure the QRC is added to the unit authorizations for those units providing maintenance functions.

82 82 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) Management of AFISRA Proof of Concept (POC), Risk Assessment (RA), Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), and Research & Development (R&D) Requirements. The processes prescribed in this supplement are applicable to those capabilities specifically excluded from governance of acquisition and life cycle sustainment-related AFIs, policy, guidance and processes published by external DoD organizations. It applies to POC, RA, ACTD, and R&D requirements, hereinafter referred to as POCs, which allows developers to determine the feasibility of a concept in the operational and maintenance environment. The intent of this policy is twofold: (1) encourage cooperation between AFISRA organization(s) and developer(s) to allow testing of new technology in the operational environment; and (2) limit the burden of POCs on the gaining organization (Added-AFISRA) POC Notification Process. The gaining organization, in coordination with the sponsoring authority, has complete control of all incoming POC installations. The gaining organization or sponsoring activity will ensure the authoritative Center, Wing/Group, AFISRA staff offices and/or AFCO (as applicable) are formally notified of pending POC installations (Added-AFISRA) POC Requirements. The sponsoring activity will provide the gaining organization a SSP and MOU/MOA message (see Attachment 8). As a minimum, the MOU/MOA will contain the POC CONOP and outline the conditions for delivery/acceptance of the capability as follows: (Added-AFISRA) Specify the capability has no formal or official operational tasking (Added-AFISRA) Designate the sponsoring activity as OPR for providing daily operational and maintenance support requirements until deactivation/de-installation (Added-AFISRA) Specify limited operational or maintenance requirements to be performed as time permits by site personnel. As time permits is defined as having no impact on operational systems performing validated/tasked missions (Added-AFISRA) Address the sponsoring activity s acceptance of risks associated with the lack of LCL planning and/or deliverables (i.e., limited to no spares, training, documentation, etc.) (Added-AFISRA) Confirmation of agreement to deactivate/deinstall capability within 180 days or agreed upon date. If determined the POC is required for an official operational tasking, the concept should be converted into the normal acquisition cycle (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA organizations should coordinate all issues, questions, and/or actions pertaining to NSA/CSS POC capabilities destined for or deployed to their locations with AFCO (Added-AFISRA) The site will not extend a POC deployment schedule beyond the initial 6 months (or agreed upon date) without formal coordination of the requirement with appropriate AFISRA staff offices.

83 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Post Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR is not a single event or test; it is a finite sequence of activities when combined provides the necessary information and preliminary planning to ensure weapon system effectiveness and suitability throughout the life cycle. The PIR compares actual system performance to program expectations and mission realities based upon the operational environment and CONOPS. PIR activities may be accomplished in the context of typical program acquisition activities or system operational processes. Review of Final Operation Test and Evaluation Results, Mission Readiness and Platform Readiness reports, User Surveys, War Game results, and the Annual Chief Financial Officer Report are examples of information that could be included in the PIR. Post Deployment Performance Review and PIR may be used interchangeably, both terms refer to the same process; the evaluation of how well actual program results have met established performance objectives for any acquisition program The PM shall develop a PIR plan no later than the Full-Rate Production (Deployment) Decision Review/Full Deployment Decision Review (FDDR). The plan shall outline PIR activities to support initial deployment of each increment The PM shall evaluate the programs current sustainment capability status, activities, and schedule to achieve the sustainment strategy s full capability to include sustainment attribute measurements, integrity monitoring activities and sustainment funding The PM, in conjunction with the user, shall conduct program reviews comparing actual program results with the current program established performance goals from the Capability Document for all MDAP and MAIS programs The initial PIR will be conducted after IOC but prior to FOC The PM in conjunction with the user shall assess build-to system requirements, technical requirements and provisioning against facts-of-life mission realities and CONOPS. Disconnects between build-to and facts-of-life shall be identified and documented as a potential capability shortfall The PM shall document the outcome of the PIR to include all identified shortfalls and adjustments due to mission realities and amend to the existing LCMP DELETED System/Program Transfer. System/Program transfer is the process by which the management authorities and responsibilities for AF weapon systems and acquisition programs are formally transferred between AFMC product centers and logistics centers. There are two overarching requirements associated with this process. First is the requirement for the losing and gaining organizations to thoroughly coordinate the transition requirements, activities, and timeframes associated with a proposed transfer. Second is the requirement for the gaining organization to secure sufficient resources (manpower, funding, facilities, etc.) prior to accepting weapon system/program management responsibilities. The overall objective of this process is to ensure a seamless (within AFMC) and transparent (to the user) transition of system/program management responsibilities System/Program Transfer Requirements. Management authorities and responsibilities for weapon systems and acquisition programs on the APML that are initially managed at an AFMC product center shall not be transferred to an Air Logistics Center (ALC) unless, at a minimum, the system, subsystem, component, or increment of capability

84 84 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 has been certified as interoperable within its intended operational environment, has achieved IOC and FRP, and is logistically supportable per the user s requirement. Executive management responsibilities for acquisition programs identified on the APML shall remain with the PEO/DAO Space systems/programs do not typically transfer to a logistics center for sustainment management. For space systems/programs that do not transfer, the acquisition program manager retains responsibility for the system for the life of the program. A PSM is assigned to manage sustainment activities within the program office; this person reports to the PM System/Program Transfer Process. The system/program transfer process is a collaborative activity that is primarily executed by the PM at the losing organization, in close coordination with their counterparts at the gaining organization. PMs may initiate planning for program transfer at any point in the acquisition process, but must establish and document the initial target transfer date in the LCMP no later than MS C or as determined by the SAE. As part of this planning activity, the losing PM shall determine and coordinate system/program transition requirements and timelines based on the criteria outlined in the previous paragraph, and the program transfer planning criteria and considerations described in AFPAM As the transfer planning effort unfolds, the PM shall brief their transition plans, requirements, risks and risk mitigation plans, and associated timelines during applicable milestone and production/deployment decision reviews, and during other program/portfolio reviews as necessary to inform senior system/program management executives and resolve transfer-related issues Transfer Support Plans (TSP). All system/program transfers shall be conducted in accordance with a Transfer Support Plan that is prepared by the losing PM in collaboration with their counterparts at the gaining organization. All affected PEOs/DAOs and AFMC center commanders that (will) oversee the program designated for transfer shall be signatories on the TSP. The AFMC/CC shall be the final signatory on the TSP prior to forwarding the plan to the SAE for approval. The PM shall target completion of the TSP no later than three years prior to the target transfer date. Once the TSP is approved, the losing PM shall update the program LCMP and any other detailed supporting plans/documents (systems engineering plan, test and evaluation master plan, etc.) as necessary to reflect the actions, timelines, and responsibilities specified in the TSP. The TSP will be maintained until the program transfer is completed, or a determination is made to terminate the proposed program transfer Consult the System/Program Transfer Guide chapter in AFPAM for additional guidance and information related to the system/program transfer process. This pamphlet provides detailed planning criteria and considerations that PMs can use to develop, coordinate, and implement TSPs The PM shall provide TSP status to AFMC and the gaining logistics organization as requested and shall coordinate changes impacting the transfer date/ TSP with the MDA and the gaining logistics organization, and notify AFMC of approved changes as detailed in AFPAM Portfolio Transfer. Portfolio transfer is the process by which the management authorities and responsibilities for AF acquisition programs are formally transferred between PEO and DAO

85 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST portfolios. Transfer of non-space programs between PEO and DAO portfolios shall be coordinated through the AFMC/CC and approved by the SAE. The impacted PEO and DAO shall prepare a joint request providing rationale and justification for the proposed transfer. Once the portfolio transfer request is approved, the impacted PEO and DAO shall prepare and execute a portfolio transfer plan Urgent Operational Needs. To satisfy Warfighter Urgent Operational Needs (UON), refer to process in AFI Capabilities-Based Requirements Development, Attachment 3, Responding To Warfighter Urgent Operational Needs (UON) and AFI , Warfighter Urgent Needs and the Rapid Response Process. The UON process provides a limited number of needed systems/capabilities in a combat theater during an ongoing conflict or crisis situation to address a critical capability gap/shortfall that could result in loss of life and/or prevent mission accomplishment. The Joint Urgent Operational Needs process is contained in CJCSI , Rapid Validation and Resourcing of Joint Urgent Operational Needs (JUONS) in the Year of Execution Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process. The AF Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process (WRAP) accelerates the development and fielding of operational initiatives resulting from innovation. Guidance on the WRAP process may be found in AFPAM Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. The Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD), previously called Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), process is a pre-acquisition activity, spanning from two to four years. It provides the user an opportunity to assess innovative technologically mature capabilities and determine the military utility before deciding to acquire additional units. The concept falls between the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) urgent needs process of fewer than two years with little or no development and the traditional, more deliberate, formal acquisition process that can stretch five to ten years. JCTDs focus on four areas: Joint, Transformational, Coalition, and Inter-agency capabilities JCTDs are intended to exploit mature and maturing technologies to solve important military problems and to concurrently develop the associated CONOPS to permit the technologies to be fully exploited. These capabilities and operational concepts are then evaluated in military exercises on a scale large enough to clearly establish operational utility and system integrity. Emphasis is on technology assessment and integration rather than technology development. The demonstration is jointly sponsored by the operational user and the materiel development communities JCTDs typically have one of three outcomes: 1) enter into formal acquisition as a new program; 2) integrate with an existing program; 3) return to technology development. A JCTD becomes a candidate for transition following a successful military utility assessment. A key goal of JCTDs is to move into the appropriate phase of formal acquisition without loss of momentum. To ensure transition occurs smoothly, the transition objective must be identified at the time the JCTD is initially approved and the transition strategy, including sustainment, must be included in the JCTD Management Plan approved by the SAE and developed during the detailed planning for the JCTD The Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) is responsible for oversight of the JCTD process. Prior to approval of a JCTD, an Implementation Directive is required to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various parties executing the JCTD

86 86 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 and to provide unambiguous top level guidance. This document is a succinct agreement which defines the operational capability to be demonstrated, the general approach, the agencies responsible for planning and conducting the demonstration, a notional approach to transition assuming a successful military utility assessment (MUA) and a positive acquisition decision, and the approximate funding and schedule. The Implementation Directive is typically signed by the sponsoring combatant command commander, Operations Deputy of the lead service, Joint Staff representative, the SAE, and DDR&E More information can be found in CJCSI Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, the JCIDS Manual, AFI , and at the JCTD webpage Intelligence Supportability Requirements. The PM, in collaboration with the Center Intelligence Office and other stakeholders, shall develop and document requirements and level of intelligence support required for the life cycle of the system IAW AFI , Intelligence in Force Modernization and AFI , Geospatial Information and Services. AFI , Intelligence Production and Applications and CJCSI a, Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification Documentation of intelligence requirements shall include the creation of a life cycle signature support plan for validated and approved signature dependent programs; in accordance with DOD Directive , Management of Signature Support within the Department of Defense. Intelligence requirements can be developed and maintained as a stand-alone document or incorporated into the LCMP as appropriate The signature support plan, developed during the Materiel Solution Analysis and Technology Development phases, shall be developed and fully defined in collaboration with the Center Intelligence Office prior to Milestone B, as defined in DOD Directive and DOD Instruction The support plan shall document signature data requirements for events and activities supporting all ACAT levels and phases of the acquisition process. Requirements captured in the plan shall include but not be limited to signature data used for intelligence, targeting, combat identification (CID), Blue Force tracking (BFT) and other tracks, smart munitions, training, weapon systems, and weapon systems development. The support plan will be reviewed, requirements reverified and approved by Center Intelligence Office prior to each Milestone Decision. The support plan can be developed and maintained as a stand-alone document or incorporated into the LCMP as appropriate In each instance that intelligence support is required, the following must occur: The Center Intelligence Office will determine if the program s intelligence requirements can be obtained from existing intelligence products. If the required intelligence does not currently exist, the PM will work with the Center Intelligence Office to develop a mitigation strategy; to include the development of cost estimates for tailored intelligence production The Center Intelligence Office shall assist the PM initiate, develop and submit intelligence community production requests as required If developmental or operational testing is required for any aspect of the program/initiative, the PM shall coordinate with the Center Intelligence Office and the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) to plan for development of

87 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST any intelligence resources that will ultimately be needed for testing and to develop data for inclusion in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and supporting documents The PM shall coordinate with the supporting intelligence office at AFMC, AFSPC or AF/A2 to develop the intelligence appendix to the Information Support Plan (ISP). Before the plan is submitted to the MDA, the intelligence appendix to the ISP must be approved by the supporting intelligence office The PM will work collaboratively with the Center Intelligence Office to determine and document requirements for geospatial information support in accordance with AFI ; to include those requirements supporting Foreign Military Sales program. The Center Intelligence Office will provide the PM the appropriate geospatial information products as required. Requirements for National Geospatial Agency (NGA) geospatial product and services support not immediately available through the Center Intelligence Office must be submitted through AFMC/A2 or AFSPC/A2 to AF/A2 for approval The PM shall engage with SAF/AQL for special access programs (SAP) or special access initiatives. SAF/AQL will work with the appropriate AF/A2 representative to determine whether intelligence support is required All ACAT ID and pre-mdap acquisition programs/initiatives or programs requiring joint oversight, must team with their Center Intelligence Office to prepare and provide intelligence related inputs to JCIDS documents and subsequent Intelligence Certification assessments The PM will incorporate the results of intelligence supportability analysis as an integral component of life cycle planning, documentation, reviews and other programmatic activities and ensure the results consider supporting program protection activities Independent Assessments. Independent assessments not specified by statute, executive orders, DOD issuances, or AF Policy Directives are at the discretion of the MDA. The functional proponent for the independent assessment may appeal the decision to the DAE/SAE for assessments within the acquisition execution chain and to AFMC/CC or to AFSPC/CC for assessments within the sustainment execution chain Nuclear Weapon Related Acquisition. Life-cycle management of Joint Air Force- National Nuclear Security Administration (AF-NNSA) developed nuclear weapons will be accomplished in accordance with DODD , Joint DOD-DOE Nuclear Weapon Life-Cycle Activities, DODI , DOD Procedures For Joint DOD-DOE Nuclear Weapons Life-Cycle Activities, and AFI , Joint Air Force-National Nuclear Security Administration (AF- NNSA) Nuclear Weapons Life Cycle Management. Where the AF and NNSA have agreed through a weapon-specific memorandum of understanding that the AF will be responsible for the life cycle management (to include acquisition and sustainment) for specific non-nuclear components/subsystems integral to a joint AF-NNSA nuclear weapon program, the DOD series publications and this instruction shall be followed. Additional Air Force nuclear weapon related policy may be found in AFI , Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program, AFI , Nuclear Certification Program, AFI , The SEEK EAGLE Program, AFI , Nuclear Weapons-Related Materiel Management, AFI , Nuclear Weapons Maintenance Procedures, AFI , Implementation of, and Compliance With, Arms Control Agreements, AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Memorandum of Understanding Between the

88 88 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of the Air Force Regarding Joint Testing and Assessment of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, and AFI , Capabilities Based Test and Evaluations. Section 3B Acquisition Programmatic Requirements Acquisition Programmatic Requirements Overview. The following section outlines acquisition program management requirements that shall be addressed throughout the program life cycle development and execution process Documentation. The PM is responsible for completing or coordinating all applicable program documentation as required by statute and policy and assessing the value to the program of other related documentation requirements. However, the law does not always specify format or level of detail The PM shall ensure sufficient detail is included in documentation to facilitate a decision by the MDA. If the PM analysis indicates a documented functional requirement does not add value, the PM can require the proponent to justify the requirement. The functional proponent may appeal a PM determination through the programmatic chain up to the MDA. The burden of proof lies with the proponent No document will be held hostage. Reviewing offices need to expedite their coordination within the time specified by the MDA/PM and either concur or non-concur. Concurrence and coordination by all parties involved may not be necessary for an MDA to make a decision. If applicable, staff packages should reflect the non-concur and stated reasons so the MDA can make a fully informed decision. PMs shall use automated tools, as available, to streamline coordination and approval The PM shall ensure program documentation is maintained and made available electronically. The PM shall ensure the LCMP, ISP, SEP, and the TEMP are consistent and complementary documents. The PM shall consolidate information requirements and streamline documentation as approved by the MDA and consistent with statute, regulations, policies, and mandates Materiel Development Decision (MDD). All potential programs proceed through an MDD review when entering the acquisition lifecycle framework. The MDD review is the formal entry into the acquisition process substantiating the need for a materiel solution based on a validated capability gap. MDD reviews will be conducted using the established Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) / Information Technology Acquisition Board (ITAB) / Air Force Review Board (AFRB) processes. The MDD review shall ensure that a complete and rigorous analysis/assessment of alternatives and their non-materiel implications will be or has been conducted. An MDA decision to begin Materiel Solution Analysis DOES NOT mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated MDD Authority. The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE), as the Milestone Decision Authority, (MDA) chairs the MDD for all potential Air Force Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and IA programs, unless delegated or designated per DODI The SAE, as the MDA, chairs all potential ACAT II MDD reviews unless delegated to a Program Executive Officer (PEO) or a Designated Acquisition Official (DAO). The PEO or DAO, as

89 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST MDA, chairs all potential ACAT III MDD reviews unless the MDA authority has been delegated to the Deputy PEO MDD Preparation. Prior to the MDD review, organizations have the following responsibilities: The Lead Operational MAJCOM (or other sponsor organization): Leads the effort to develop and obtain approval of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) or other document that validates the capability gap (supported by AF/A5R) (JROC approval required for ACAT I and IA potential programs) Leads the effort to identify initial materiel concepts Coordinates on Concept Characterization and Technical Descriptions (CCTD) for potential and designated ACAT I and IA programs prior to presentation at the Air Force Review Board (AFRB) and the AFROC review of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan. CCTD fidelity and completeness will reflect concept maturity Drafts the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Guidance, and provides it to Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (D,CAPE) for potential ACAT I and IA programs. For ACAT I and IA potential programs the D,CAPE reviews and approves the MAJCOM draft AoA Study Guidance to ensure it is ready to present to MDA for the MDD For potential ACAT II and III programs, develops alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance to present at the MDD review Identifies Requirements Manager and notifies the appropriate SAF/AQ Capability Director (CD) or SAF/US CD Notifies SAF/AQ CD or SAF/US CD to schedule DAB / ITAB / AFRB (or other venue as established by MDA or DOD policy) to conduct the MDD SAF/AQ CD or SAF/US CD Notifies Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) and obtains approval to schedule MDD (Note: SAE approval not required for delegated ACAT II and III potential programs) Schedules MDD and any additional pre-decisional meetings (schedules with Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis (D,ARA) for potential ACAT I and IA programs) Develops and proposes DAB / ITAB / AFRB outcome objectives for the MDD (coordinates with OSD for potential ACAT I and IA programs prior to the MDD, include resource strategy and phase-specific entrance criteria for next program MS, supported by Development Planning (DP) and MAJCOM organizations) PEO / DAO and assigned Program Office and/or Product Center / Specialized Center XR(s) in support of Lead Operational MAJCOMs (or other sponsor organizations).

90 90 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Leads initial trade space (ICD / CONOPS to concept) and concepts characterization activities for materiel solutions Obtains stakeholder inputs and develops and provides Lead Operational MAJCOM (or other sponsor organizations) initial CCTDs to support development of AoA Study Guidance. Provide CCTDs for potential and designated ACAT I and IA programs to SAF/AQR 120 days prior to AFROC review of AoA Study Plan Determines supporting rationale for where the program should enter in the acquisition lifecycle Analyzes and provides recommendation on ACAT level In concert with the implementing MAJCOM, develops and presents a resource and funding strategy that includes sponsor commitments specifically identifying, but not limited to, the AoA, JCIDS support, risk reduction efforts, and science and technology (S&T) investments between MDD and the next acquisition Milestone Implementing MAJCOM (HQ AFMC / HQ AFSPC) Programs and prioritizes resources to review potential concepts and provide operational and acquisition stakeholders input on each concept feasibility and potential ACAT level Provides logistics considerations for the AoA Study Guidance or alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance as appropriate to ACAT category For potential ACAT I and IA programs the D,CAPE reviews and approves the MAJCOM draft AoA Study Guidance to ensure readiness for presentation to MDA at the MDD Conducting the MDD. The MDD review occurs at a DAB / ITAB / AFRB or other venue as established by MDA or DOD policy. The MDD precedes entry into the acquisition management system. At a minimum, conducting an MDD is dependent upon a JROC / AFROC approved ICD (validated capability gap) and the D, CAPE / Lead Operational MAJCOM being prepared to present the AoA Study Guidance or alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance for MDA approval. At the MDD, organizations have the following responsibilities: The Lead Operational MAJCOM (or other sponsor organization) Presents ICD (validated capability gap documentation), include preliminary concepts of operation, description of the needed capability, operational risk, and basis for determining that non-materiel approaches are insufficient Describes potential materiel concepts/solutions identified in CCTDs Present ACAT II and III alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance for MDA approval. Note: For potential ACAT I and ACAT IA programs AoA Study Guidance is presented by D, CAPE.

91 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Present AFROC recommendation that a materiel solution is required. Note: For potential ACAT I and ACAT IA programs Joint Staff will present JROC recommendation SAF/AQ CD (Supported by Program Office and/or Product Center / Specialized Center XR(s)/DP organization) Proposes DAB / ITAB / AFRB recommended objective outcomes for decision Recommends and provides rationale for lifecycle phase entry point Presents plan to have resources in place appropriate to lifecycle phase entry point Proposes phase-specific entrance criteria for next program MS Presents potential materiel solutions feasibilities Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Determines if additional information is required Reviews AoA Study Guidance or alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance Approves recommended acquisition phase of entry and phase-specific entrance criteria for next program MS Designates lead acquisition organization. Note: If DAE is MDA, designation is of lead DOD Component Makes decision to begin Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (or other acquisition phase based on appropriate justification) Approves resource strategy for post MDD phase of effort After the MDD review, organizations have the following responsibilities: Lead Operational MAJCOM (or other sponsor organization) Drafts AoA Study Plan or alternative analysis / supporting analysis plan Identifies and obtains stakeholder coordination (include OSD for ACAT I and IA potential programs) Obtains AoA Study Plan or analysis plan AF validation via the AFROC Obtains AoA Study Plan or analysis plan MDA coordination (MDA approves ACAT II and III plans) Obtains AoA Study Plan D,CAPE approval for potential ACAT I and IA programs and for programs which the JROC is the validation authority for the joint military requirement Ensures allocation of appropriate funding for execution of effort to meet next milestone.

92 92 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Conducts AoA or other appropriate analysis for ACAT II and III potential programs SAF/AQ CD or SAF/US CD Drafts and staffs Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) for MDA approval for ACAT I, IA, or non-delegated ACAT II program, capturing MDD decisions and directions Supports OSD staffing of ADM (as required) Distributes ADM and AoA Study Guidance or alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance to appropriate Lead Operational MAJCOM (or other lead sponsor organization ), implementing MAJCOM, and PEO / DAO Ensures potential program added to the APML and interfaces with Director, Acquisition Resource Analysis (D,ARA) for inclusion on the USD(AT&L) MDAP List as required Supports program documentation preparation consistent with phase of entry (e.g., New Start Notification, R-docs) PEO and assigned Program Office and/or Product Center / Specialized Center XR(s) Begins acquisition efforts appropriate to lifecycle phase of entry Provide current versions of CCTDs for concepts for inclusion in the AoA Study Plan or analysis plan to SAF/AQR prior to AFROC validation. Provide CCTDs for concepts in the approved AoA Study Plan to the AoA Study Team Implementing MAJCOM (HQ AFMC / HQ AFSPC) Designates and assigns lead and supporting Product Centers Begins appropriate actions to support potential program start up per ADM Identifies AFMC/AFSPC primary activities (centers/functionals) for sustainment support and environmental considerations MDA Documents the Materiel Development Decisions from the MDD review in an ADM (e.g., phase of entry with phase-specific entrance criteria for next program MS, AoA Study Guidance approval, AF organization) Provides ADM and AoA Study Guidance / alternative analysis / supporting analysis guidance to lead DoD Component / appropriate CD SAE Assigns to PEO / DAO (if not already delegated) with HQ AFMC or HQ AFSPC input Courses of Action (COA). The purpose of the Courses of Action (COA) is to present the operational MAJCOM commander with acquisition strategy options for the selected materiel

93 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST solution resulting from AoAs. The AoAs should clearly articulate performance, schedule, and cost expectations as well as initial risk assessment of the program to ensure expectations are known and agreed to up front. The COA will serve as the basis for the Acquisition Strategy, TDS, T&E Strategy, LCMP and PMA. Approval at the lead MAJCOM commander and MDA level for the selected COA will ensure agreement among leadership on program expectations, risks and performance (or incremental performance) for specified cost and schedule goals COA Team Composition. The COA team, led by the acquisition community, is comprised of representatives from S&T, T&E, financial management, contracting, planning/requirements, intelligence, sustainment, acquisition, and user communities and others that are deemed necessary COA Development. The MDA (or designee) will lead the development of the COA in conjunction with the user to identify different acquisition strategy approaches for the selected materiel solution selected from the AoA. The acquisition strategy options may vary based upon the full or partial capabilities needed by the user over time coupled with the type of approach recommended. Different COAs may have different contracting strategies, incremental development schedules, product support considerations, or deployment methodologies. A preliminary T&E strategy will also be developed for each COA to provide a complete picture for the decision maker. The important differences between past practices and this one are that the user fully participates in the process, and the lead MAJCOM commander is presented with more than one approach. While the TDS sequentially follows the COA, the COA cannot be created without an understanding of the technology and maturity levels needed to provide the new capabilities. After the MAJCOM selects a preferred COA, the TDS and T&E strategy become the plans for lowering technical risk during the Technology Development Phase COA Attributes. Joint Pub , Joint Doctrine for Campaign Planning, defines required COA attributes this way: A valid COA must be: 1) Suitable: accomplish the mission and support the commander s guidance; 2) Feasible: accomplish the mission within the established time, space, and resource constraint; 3) Acceptable: balance cost with advantage gained by executing a particular COA; 4) Distinguishable: each COA must be significantly different from the others; and 5) Complete: must incorporate major operations and tasks to be accomplished, logistics concept, employment concept, time estimates for reaching objectives and desired end state Preparing COAs. The COA has no specified format. Each COA briefly describes how the program will deliver the required capability to the user and clearly state the cost, schedule, and performance objectives. A collaborative team (acquirer, user, tester, sustainer, etc.) determines the specific content of the COA. The COA should state an initial risk assessment. COAs will capture possible tradespace to satisfy user capability needs. The final COAs should clearly state each capability s development schedule and delivery date as well as cost estimates. The commitments in the COAs should be presented at the most realistic level possible. Documentation must show confidence levels regarding cost, schedule, capabilities delivered, risk mitigation, etc Selecting a COA Submittal. Once complete, the MDA will approve the PM s COAs in writing and submit them to the lead operational MAJCOM.

94 94 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Selection. The lead MAJCOM may select a COA or decide not to pursue the requirement. Should the MAJCOM choose a COA, it will serve as a formal agreement between the MDA and lead MAJCOM commander. The lead MAJCOM commander s decision will serve as a basis for the AS/LCMP and the PMA Funding and Changes. The selected COA will include the lead MAJCOM s commitment to appropriately fund the development effort in accordance the governing Program Objectives Memorandum (POM). Any changes must be in writing with the mutual agreement of the MDA and the lead MAJCOM Documenting a COA. The COA will serve as an agreement and will be reflected in the program s acquisition documentation. Help from the Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE), either locally at the Product or Logistics Centers or at SAF/AQ, is available to assist PMs as they prepare the COAs. The COA can later be used as the starting point for the PMA Program Management Directive (PMD). The PMD conveys the guidance and direction of the decision authority and identifies the various organizations along with their essential responsibility for ensuring the success of a program or other effort. This includes the PEO, DAO, PM, CDs, HAF offices, MAJCOMs, test organizations, FOAs, and any other component or organization essential for meeting the operational need. PMDs are required for funded programs contained in the Acquisition Program Master List (APML). If events necessitate programmatic changes, the PMD OPR must update the PMD. (See Headquarters Operating Instruction (HOI) 63-1, HQ AF Guidance for Preparing Program Management Directives, for additional details and guidance) Product Support Considerations and Strategic Sourcing Determination. Product support considerations and strategic sourcing considerations shall be identified as part of development planning. This includes identifying and documenting product support considerations and strategic sourcing as part of AoA and COA analysis and decisions. Product support considerations and strategic sources determination shall be made as early as feasible and should consider the Air Force enterprise needs Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP). The Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) is the integrated acquisition and sustainment strategy for the life of the system. The LCMP fulfills the FAR, DFARS, and AFFARS requirements of the Acquisition Plan and the DODI requirements of the Acquisition Strategy which includes the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. (See AFPAM for LCMP template and detailed guidance.) The PM shall develop a LCMP that documents the life cycle strategies necessary to satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements for programs or modifications acquired under DODI The LCMP streamlines, consolidates, and makes visible to senior leadership all aspects of the program. The LCMP shall guide program execution from program initiation (generally at MS B) through demilitarization and will be used as the basis for program transfer planning and materiel (hardware, software, and services) fielding decisions The LCMP is required for all programs on the APML, weapon systems identified in AFPD 10-9 Lead Command Designations and Responsibilities for Weapon Systems, and space acquisition programs. At the AFMC/CC, ALC/CC, or PM discretion, programs on the SPML may utilize an LCMP. At the AFSPC/CC, SMC/CC, or PM discretion, space

95 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST programs in sustainment may utilize an LCMP. It shall be approved prior to program initiation (normally MS B), drafted as early as possible and continually matured through program life cycle. An LCMP is required for ACAT III programs; however this can be accomplished by a tailored LCMP as approved by the LCMP approval authority The LCMP shall be updated/approved preceding each milestone decision point or whenever the approved strategies change At the discretion of the approval authority, the LCMP for a modification may be an annex to the existing and approved system LCMP Fact-of-life changes, such as updates to schedule and funding adjustments, do not require a re-coordination of the LCMP unless they drive a significant change in the approved strategies or APB Existing programs that do not currently have an LCMP shall transition to an LCMP when the program: Enters a new milestone, or Implements a significant change that would have resulted in a revision to the Product Support Management Plan (PSMP), or Implements a major system modification. At the discretion of the approval authority, the requirement may be met with an annex to the existing system approved acquisition/sustainment strategy documentation. The annex will be completed in accordance with all LCMP requirements DELETED The LCMP shall be coordinated and approved at the levels dictated by the AFFARS, as appropriate to the ACAT. Refer to AFFARS Part 5307 and supplements for guidance. For additional information refer to Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) The PM is responsible for the LCMP development and maintenance but shall collaborate with and be supported by stakeholders The responsibility for updating, maintaining and approving the LCMP shall convey with program transfer The MDA for programs on the APML should approve the LCMP prior to the release of a formal solicitation for EMD. For programs on the SPML that require an LCMP, the approval authority should approve the LCMP prior to the release of a formal solicitation The PM shall ensure approved LCMPs are posted and maintained on the AF Knowledge Now (AFKN) Portal: LCMP Community of Practice (CoP). The PM will use the portal to document, share, and update programmatic data The LCMP integrates all aspects of acquisition and sustainment into a single integrated life cycle plan. It shall be the overarching document that encompasses and integrates information from all other program plans and assessments (plans that cover systems engineering; test and evaluation; training; intelligence supportability, information

96 96 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 support; diminishing manufacturing; sustainment, corrosion, etc.). See AFPAM for LCMP template and detailed guidance The PM may incorporate or reference in the LCMP final conclusions, recommendations, or summaries of traditional documents where appropriate. Reference AFPAM for a list of possible source documents and detailed guidance For non-space programs the PM shall ensure the LCMP includes all requirements identified for inclusion in the Acquisition Strategy per DODI including, but not limited to: Statutory and regulatory requirements per Enclosure 4, life cycle sustainment planning per Paragraph 8, summaries of action required to comply with Clinger Cohen Act Compliance per Table 8, and a summary of Human Systems Integration (HSI) planning per Enclosure DELETED The PM shall ensure the LCMP: Summarizes New Start requirements and documents appropriate Congressional notification. (SAF/FM New Start Homepage on AF Portal: All Organizations : HAF - Headquarters Air Force : SAF/FM - Financial Management and Comptroller : SAF/FMB - Budget : Unique To Us : SAF/FMBI : New Starts) Identifies available program funding. Separately identifies the funding required to support planned Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) programs. (10 USC 139; 10 USC 2431). Provides a breakout by year of appropriation for all funding sources and identifies support from the Working Capital Fund areas as required for depot maintenance or supply management Defines the proposed acquisition approach. (10 USC 2304, 10 USC 2305, and 10 USC 2306) Identifies the acquisition chain of authority for the program meeting the requirements identified in DODD , paragraph E Summarizes the make or buy approach to establish and maintain access to competitive suppliers for critical areas at system, subsystem, and component level (e.g., requiring an open systems architecture, make or buy plan. etc.). (FAR 7.105(b)(11), and FAR ) Summarizes how market research was conducted and the results. (10 USC 2377) Summarizes the source selection approach (competitive award, sole source procurement, or dual source development with down select to one production contract). If sole source, document applicable exception(s) to full and open competition. Describe and justify strategy changes from core (initial) to subsequent increments. (FAR Part 6, 10 USC 2304, 10 USC 2305, and 10 USC 2306, 15 USC 644 (a), (d), and (j); PL ) Identifies source selection procedures to be utilized (AFFARS , 10 USC 2305).

97 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Identifies the anticipated type of contract(s) and anticipated contract incentive(s). This shall include how competition will be sought, promoted, and sustained throughout the course of the acquisition and the comparative benefits of awarding a new contract vice placing an order under an existing contract. (10 USC 2306, 10 USC 2304) This shall describe the measures taken to ensure competition or the option of competition, at both the prime and subcontract level throughout the program life-cycle. (Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law )) Summarizes the approach for identifying and analyzing the key programmatic risk elements including interdependence with other programs Summarizes the approach for identifying and analyzing the key risk elements. Identifies how prototypes will be used to mitigate key risk elements Identifies the technical and cost parameters that will be used to manage the program. This will include objective and threshold values or reference Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), if applicable. (10 USC 2435) Summarizes the configuration management approach and identifies how changes to the baseline will be documented Summarizes the Systems Engineering (SE) approach, reflecting a disciplined process to ensure critical considerations (including but not limited to Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E), verification, security, supportability, human systems integration (HSI), product and system integrity, ESOH, and industrial base issues) are implemented during concept development, system design, development, production and sustainment. (AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering) Identifies if Clinger-Cohen Compliance is applicable (40 USC 8066) Identifies if arms control treaties and agreements impact the program Summarizes the anticipated test and evaluation strategy, structure, and objectives of the integrated test program and overall approach to contractor and government development test and evaluation, live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) (if required), and operational test and evaluation. (see AFI , Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation; 10 USC 139, 10 USC 2366, 10 USC 2399, 10 USC 2400) Includes a corrosion prevention control plan summarizing the approach for identifying and controlling corrosion Identifies and summarizes the approach to meeting any certification or independent assessment requirements Summarizes the approach to meeting electromagnetic spectrum requirements of the system over its entire life cycle in accordance with OMB Circular A-11, Section Summarizes the projected materiel fielding methodologies and timelines and presents the materiel fielding-related activities to be conducted during the EMD phase.

98 98 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Includes a Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) addressing the life cycle sustainment considerations using the following top-level Product Support Elements: 1) sustaining/system engineering, 2) design interface, 3) supply support, 4) maintenance planning and management, 5) support equipment/automatic test systems (SE/ATS), 6) facilities, 7) packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (PHS&T), 8) technical data management/technical orders, 9) manpower and personnel, 10) training, 11) computer resources, and 12) protection of critical program information and anti-tamper provisions. The product support elements are further defined in AFPAM Summarizes the approach to satisfying life cycle statutory requirements for core and 50/50. This will include 50/50 assessments and document program specific issues and requirements as well as a summary of depot activation requirements and funding. If a HQ AFMC certified source of repair determination has not been completed, this will include the approach to develop organic depot repair capability for those workloads identified to satisfy a core capability requirement(s). (10 USC 2464,10 USC 2466) Identifies and summarizes potential and existing Public-Private Partnerships Summarizes the plan for Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) determination Summarizes the plan for satisfying Military Equipment Valuation (MEV) requirements by MS C/Build Approval Summarizes the approach for meeting Serialized Item Management (SIM) requirements including Item Unique Identification (IUID) planning and, if applicable, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (This is also required in the Information Support Plan (ISP)). (10 USC 2223, DODI , DODI ) Summarizes how modeling and simulation will be used throughout the life cycle Summarizes, if applicable, the Interim Contract Support (ICS) requirements, approach and a plan to transition to normal sustainment support Summarizes the approach for providing the reliability, maintainability, and readiness necessary to meet the needs of the warfighter with minimum logistic foot print at best value Provides a Data Management Strategy including a description of the system data rights analysis and action plan to satisfy AF needs for all technical data including drawings and technical orders. This includes a strategy to acquire data and data rights in anticipation of sustainment strategy including future organic depot repair capability and demilitarization efforts if applicable. (Rights and Technical Data, 10 USC 2320) Provides a summary of the Programmatic Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) risk management approach (see paragraph 3.49) to include the integration strategy, the NEPA Compliance Schedule, and a

99 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST summary of all High and Serious risks (based on the projected final risk category). (National Environmental Policy, 42 USC ) Identifies the impact of the life cycle approach on the national technology or industrial base. (Technology and Industrial Base Plans, 10 USC 2440) Identifies if and when a critical program information (CPI) assessment was accomplished using the systems engineering process and documents if a Program Protection Plan (PPP) is needed. Summarizes existing PPPs Summarizes the migration (disposal) approach Identifies opportunities for allied participation within the program. (Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDA), 10 USC 2350a) Summarizes the results of intelligence supportability analysis Summarizes and provides rationale for any deviation or tailoring of policy requirements Establishes the initial target transfer date; date required to be documented not later than MS C or as determined by the SAE Summarizes the plan for sustaining the replaced (existing) system during fielding and transition to the new system. (10 USC 2437) The Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). The ADM officially starts the acquisition process and documents the results of the Materiel Development Decision and every MS decision. The ADM will document descriptions of the responsibilities of each organization, the funding source, and the actions necessary to prepare for the next MS decision. The ADM is also used to document MDA decisions not related to a milestone such as results of the Post PDR Assessment and formal acceptance of moderate and high residual risks. The MDA signs the ADM. A copy of the ADM for non-space programs shall be provided to HQ AFMC for assignment of management responsibilities to AFMC product and logistics centers or adjustment of previously assigned center responsibilities as necessary Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The PM shall ensure each program or increment has an APB establishing program goals thresholds and objectives for the minimum number of cost, schedule, supportability, and performance parameters that describe the program over its life cycle. Reference 10 USC 2433 and 10 USC The PM shall structure the APB to be consistent with the incremental development strategy and capability documents The original APB is prepared prior to the program entering EMD or program initiation whichever occurs later. The APB shall be revised at each subsequent MS decision and at full rate production. The APB shall be updated at significant or critical Nunn- McCurdy cost breaches Program Management Agreement (PMA). PMAs shall be prepared in accordance with DODI guidance after the Air Force makes the investment decision to pursue a new program and the PM has been assigned DELETED.

100 100 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST DELETED DELETED DELETED: DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED DELETED Technology Development Strategy (TDS). The TDS defines the activities of the Technology Development Phase and provides the technology development strategy over the system life cycle. The results of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) during the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase provide the basis for the TDS. The TDS documents the plan for multiple technology development demonstrations or prototypes that may be necessary before the user and developer agree that a proposed technology solution is affordable, militarily useful, and based on mature technology. (Reference: Public Law , Section 803.) The MDA shall determine who will prepare the Technology Development Strategy (TDS). AFRL shall assist in the preparation of a TDS for MS A, B, and C when appropriate The TDS is required for MS A and precedes the formal acquisition strategy. The TDS is updated at subsequent milestones and does not need to be a standalone document. It may be subsumed into the LCMP after MS A. The technical content of the TDS shall be consistent with the SEP. For evolutionary acquisition programs, the TDS shall be approved by the MDA prior to the start of each increment.

101 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Final Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the Technology Development Phase should not be released or any action be taken that would commit the program to a particular contracting strategy for Technology Development, until the MDA has approved the TDS The TDS at a minimum shall include the requirements defined in DODI In addition the TDS shall include the following: A summary of the prototyping and competition approach including the number of competing prototypes, prototype units, and prototype subsystem elements that may be produced and deployed during technology development. It will identify the decision point to which the prototypes will be carried and a description of how prototypes will be supported. It will correlate the prototypes to the program risks and identify specific performance goals. Unless waived, competitive prototyping is now a statutory requirement for MDAPs. (Reference: Public Law ) Address reliability, availability, maintainability, and supportability (RAMS) concepts and technologies to ensure the technology(s) being developed meet the RAMS capability needs identified in the ICD The technology development test plan, including the goals and exit criteria for technologies being developed in all phases of the acquisition not just the Technology Development Phase. This plan is distinct from the separately developed and approved T&E Strategy which takes a broader view A summary of the intelligence support (to include signature data) required to develop and execute the TDS, concept/goal development, prototype evaluation and exit criteria for completing the Technology Development phase AFRL Support. AFRL will support the development of the TDS and the associated risk plan. To rapidly and successfully transition their technology projects into operational military systems, AFRL will support the development of phased capabilities requirements by helping the acquisition and operational communities assess the maturity and viability of considered technologies in the operational environment Help secure approved technology transition plans (TTP), to include prime contractors Help secure associate contractor agreements between the technology developer and the acquisition systems prime contractor, if required Support seamless communication and collaboration to assist in the incorporation of identified technologies; when appropriate co-locate laboratory personnel with the PM Ensure incorporation of SE methodologies tailored for AFRL technology development done in support of EA programs Ensure enhanced management oversight to quickly identify and resolve any issues that arise, and exploit additional collaborative opportunities Ensure coordination from stakeholders that the fielded technology is supportable within program cost and time constraints.

102 102 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Test and Evaluation (T&E) Strategy. The PM, working through the Integrated test Team, shall ensure the T&E strategy is approved by MS A for all programs on the APML. The T&E Strategy is the overarching integrated T&E plan for the entire acquisition program that describes how operational capability requirements will be tested and evaluated in support of the acquisition strategy. The T&E strategy addresses modeling and simulation, risk and risk mitigation, development of support equipment, and identifies how system concepts will be evaluated against mission requirements, among other things. The TE strategy is a precursor to the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). Guidance on development of the T&E Strategy can be found in AFI Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). The PM, working through the ITT, shall ensure a TEMP is prepared prior to MS B for applicable programs in accordance with AFI The TEMP integrates the requirements, acquisition, Test and Evaluation (T&E), and sustainment strategies, along with all T&E schedules, funding, and resources, into an efficient continuum of integrated testing. PMs must not disregard T&E for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), non-developmental items (NDI), and government-furnished equipment (GFE). TEMPs are strongly encouraged for all programs, projects, and activities. Guidance on development of the TEMP can be found in AFI Integrated Master Plans (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS). The PM shall develop and maintain the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that integrates all program activities and schedules into a single sight picture. This includes integrated master schedules from all contractors, as well as government activities to include test plans. The IMP and IMS provide a basis for effective communication; serve as baselines for program plans, status, and progress; and provide a basis for resource analysis, exploration of alternatives, and cost, performance, and schedule tradeoff studies. They should be integrated at all levels, contain sufficient detail, and capture key events. Refer to Defense Acquisition Guidebook for additional information Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) Analysis. The PM shall perform recurring, cost, schedule, and risk analysis of the contractors PMB to assure continuing progress and program realism. PMB should contain sufficient detail, account for all scope, reflect accurate schedules, and must be jointly reviewed to assess implementation of the contractor s earned value system via the IBR process. The IBR is a continuous, iterative process throughout the life of the effort to ensure continued realism of the integrated PMB. Disciplined and comprehensive reviews of the IMP, IMS, and PMB are essential to avoid surprises and miscommunication Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis and Documentation. Overall responsibility for establishing and documenting RAM requirements for a system rests with the system's lead MAJCOM. Weapon system capability and supportability will be used throughout the entire life cycle to evaluate program status. Reliability, availability, and maintainability are system parameters which directly contribute to mission capability and supportability. The system's program manager, in collaboration with the sustainment community, is responsible for conducting an analysis of the users requirements and recommending RAM parameters that are within the technical, cost, schedule, and risk constraints of the program. In this analysis, consideration shall be given to the entire life cycle requirements and design decisions shall strive to minimize total ownership costs and the logistics footprint while delivering effective and suitable operational capability. RAM requirements shall be

103 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST developed for all programs, regardless of ACAT level, in concert with operational requirements and addressed throughout the system life cycle. The PM shall implement a RAM strategy that includes a reliability growth program as an integral part of design, development, and sustainment to ensure mandatory sustainment KPPs and supporting materiel reliability KSAs are met. The RAM strategy shall emphasize the reduction of life cycle costs through cost-effective RAM initiatives and investments throughout the life of the system. The RAM strategy shall be integrated within the Systems Engineering processes and addressed in the SEP and LCSP portion of the LCMP. Reference the DOD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability and the DOD Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Cost Rationale Report Manual for additional information Lead MAJCOM or designated operating command (Ref. AFI ) shall: Identify RAMS and other suitability requirements that satisfy the mission capability requirements. Cite critical mission capability and supportability requirements in specific operational terms Ensure compatibility with the AF and MAJCOM logistics strategic plans Support investigation of operational and support concepts for similar systems Consider surge and combat support needs at forward operating bases and austere sites Tailor support requirements and assess tradeoffs Document the methodologies and assumptions used to develop specific requirements and rationale for including specific parameters in requirements documents. This rationale shall include the quantified impact of RAMS on operational tasks, assumptions about the operational mission scenario, mission profile, and failure definitions for OT&E Advocate for adequate resources to be programmed to acquire, field, sustain and dispose of mission capabilities The PM shall: Analyze the users RAMS requirements and make recommendations to ensure they are balanced with the technical, cost, schedule, and risk constraints of the program Translate lead MAJCOM/designated operating command requirements into quantifiable contractual terms and articulate these throughout the design process and document methodologies and rationale used Determine costs associated with solutions to satisfy mission capability and RAMS requirements Identify the resources required to acquire, field, sustain and dispose of mission capabilities The PM shall document the analyses, rationales, and tradeoffs made in the development of the RAMS requirements and link measures of effectiveness and suitability used in the AoA to the measures stated in the JCIDS documents. The initial development of RAMS requirements shall begin with a validated need and continue in parallel with

104 104 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 development of the operational capability document. The RAMS documentation shall be consistent with the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) The PM shall document an executive overview of the RAMS goals and constraints, the material developer s and user s analysis, and the threshold RAMS requirements The PM shall document the failure definition and scoring criteria, as identified by the user, to classify the cause and effect of RAMS characteristics testing failures A mission-essential functions list (MEFL) shall document the minimum operational tasks that the weapon system must be capable of performing to accomplish its mission profiles. All intended mission profiles will have a MEFL Minimum Essential Subsystems List (MESL) documents the minimum essential subsystems needed to perform the intended missions. All intended mission profiles will have a MESL. Reference AFPD 10-6, Lead Command Designations and Responsibilities for Weapon Systems, and AFI , Equipment Inventory Status and Utilization Reporting, for more information The classification and chargeability guidelines as described in the Joint Reliability and Maintainability Evaluation Team (JRMET) (or similar IPT) Charter shall describe the rules for coding failures, maintenance events, and maintenance actions The PM shall document the feasibility analysis and allocation of users RAMS requirements. This identifies the RAMS characteristics constrained by technology, cost, schedule, and risk. This documentation shall provide for the translation of operational requirements into technical contract specifications and shall include: A baseline comparison system used to estimate the RAMS characteristics of a proposed system. This may be an actual system (such as the proposed system s predecessor) or a hypothetical system of assemblies with similar technology and complexity to the proposed system The design reference mission profile that identifies the tasks, events, timelines and duration, operating conditions, and environments of the system for each phase of a mission. It also defines the boundaries of the performance envelope and identifies appropriate system constraints The PM shall document the testability analysis of the RAMS requirements that determine if the parameters identified are testable and documents the test methods for each parameter The PM shall document the user analysis used in developing the RAMS requirements and their operational utility. This includes the RAMS impacts analysis performed during the user s AoA and KPP determination, operational effectiveness analysis for each increment, and total cost of ownership analysis. This should be an interactive process with the developer s analysis to ensure proper balance between operational utility, cost, schedule, and risk considerations The PM shall document the RAM parameters and methods of calculation that, as a minimum, include the following areas: availability, reliability, cost of ownership, and

105 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST mean down time (MDT). The PM s reliability growth program shall address compliance with initial mandatory sustainment KPPs and supporting materiel reliability KSAs Aircraft Availability Improvement Program (AAIP). PMs of programs which have aircraft as a system shall have an AAIP plan by MS-C. The AAIP strategy shall be summarized in the LCMP (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA/A4/7, Maintenance Division (AFISRA/A4M) is the RAMS program OPR Risk Management Plans. The PM shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for all ACAT programs, potential ACAT programs, and Services Category I and II programs. The RMP describes the strategy by which the program will coordinate and integrate its risk management efforts to include a description and the responsibilities of the cross-functional risk management IPT. The Risk Management Guide for DOD Acquisition is the basic guidance for executing risk management The PM shall use the 5x5 risk matrix, likelihood criteria, and consequence criteria provided in Chapter 12 of AFPAM to assess cost, schedule, performance, and other program risks Risks identified using the MILSTD882D system safety methodology shall be translated using Table 3.1, Translation of MIL-STD-882D Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management Guide Matrix The RMP can be incorporated into the LCMP or other appropriate planning document. The RMP shall be linked to the risk management activities described in other planning documents (e.g., source selection plan, SEP, PESHE) The RMP shall be developed and continually matured throughout the life of the weapon system The PM shall prepare risk handling/mitigation plans for all moderate and high risks. The PM shall ensure a mechanism is in place to track and archive all risks and handling/mitigation plans throughout the program s life cycle DELETED The PM shall present the following risk related information as a part of all program, technical, and Milestone decision reviews or to support other key decision points The standard 5x5 risk matrix. On the risk matrix, the PM shall plot, and be prepared to discuss, each of the program s identified high and moderate risks and the corresponding mitigation plans The Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) of all critical technology elements. See the Defense Acquisition Guidebook for more information The system s assessed Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs). See the Defense Acquisition Guidebook for more information The Probability of Program Success (PoPS) Windshield Chart as applicable.

106 106 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST All high and serious ESOH risks identified using the MILSTD882D system safety methodology and the translation table at Table 3.1 Translation of MIL- STD-882D Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management Guide Matrix Formal acceptance of moderate and high residual risks (after all mitigation plans have been completed) shall be included in approval documentation. Table 3.1. Translation of MIL-STD-882D Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management Guide Matrix Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE). The PM shall prepare and maintain a PESHE throughout the life of the program. The PESHE is required at MS B, MS C, and at the Full-Rate Production Decision Review/Full Deployment Decision Review/Build Approval. The PM shall obtain formal coordination of new and updated PESHEs from their Product Center or ALC Environmental, Safety, SG offices, and ESOHC-IPT offices. The PESHE must document the following: The strategy for integrating ESOH considerations into the SE process (reference MIL-STD-882D as a guide). This ESOH integration strategy must define the division of roles and responsibilities with the HSI effort for the overlapping domains of environment, safety and occupational health The ESOH risk matrix, including definitions of each of the ESOH Severity Categories, Probability Levels, Risk Values, and Risk Categories The ESOH hazard tracking data, preferably by linking to the hazard tracking system. This should include hazardous materials, wastes, and pollutants. (AFI , Hazardous Materials Management) The method for tracking ESOH hazards throughout the life cycle of the system and for reporting the status of ESOH hazards to the testers, operators, and maintainers.

107 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST A compliance schedule for National Environmental Policy Act/ Environmental Impact Analysis Process (NEPA/EIAP) (42 USC d and Executive Order 12114). SAF/AQR is the Air Force approval authority for NEPA documentation for which the PM is the proponent (32 CFR 989) Identification of roles, responsibilities, and resources allocated for ESOH management within the SE process A reasonably current assessment of the ESOH management efforts using the ODUSD(A&T)/SSE System Safety-ESOH Management Evaluation Criteria for DOD Acquisition Identification of system-specific applications that use hexavalent chromium (Cr6+). Include risks associated with Cr6+ use, efforts to qualify less toxic alternatives, and status of PEO or ALC/CC approval to continue to use Cr6+ in each application. Analysis of alternatives should address cost/schedule risks and life cycle cost comparisons (including material handling and disposal costs and system overhaul cycle times/costs due to differences in corrosion protection). Reference Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning paragraph (3.68) of this document for guidance on integrating with corrosion control planning and obtaining PEO or ALC/CC approval for each Cr6+ application Modeling and Simulation (M&S). The PM shall evaluate the benefits of including Modeling and Simulation. M&S is a key enabler to reduce weapon system life cycle costs (LCC) as well as reduce risk and accelerate acquisition and fielding. M&S can facilitate the analysis of complex new system requirements and designs and expand performance envelopes The PM shall coordinate M&S activities with other design, analysis, and T&E/verification and validation (V&V) activities to capitalize on efficiencies and savings If applicable, the PM shall coordinate with the Center Intelligence Office to assess the need and determine the most appropriate method to obtain intelligence data for M&S. For more information reference AFI , Modeling and Simulation If applicable, the PM shall plan for the use of M&S to support aircraft-stores certification over the life cycle of the item, in accordance with AFI , SEEK EAGLE Program If applicable, the PM shall plan for the use of M&S to facilitate analysis of complex systems and SoS requirements and designs.the PM shall plan for and insert M&S early and throughout the life cycle. The PM shall document M&S analysis and resulting plans in the SEP and T&E Strategy as well as provide a summary in the LCMP Contractor Incentives. AF acquisition activities shall implement contract strategies, applying incentives where appropriate, to consistently motivate excellent contract performance while ensuring cost, schedule, and technical performance control. Contract fee structures must be implemented throughout the life cycle that tie incentive or award fee to realized program outcomes while, simultaneously recognizing the contractor s need to earn fees throughout the contract performance period. There is no one size fits all incentive strategy; the PM must use methods to reward performance, motivating the contractor to deliver all contractual requirements in a superior manner. Further direction is found in an appended note to 10 USC 2302, FAR

108 108 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Part 16, and DFARS Parts 215 and 216. Refer to AFPAM for further guidance on contract incentives Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) Limitations. The MDA, PEO, DAO, and PM shall ensure no entity performing Lead System Integrator (LSI) functions in the acquisition of a major system by the Department of Defense has any direct financial interest in the development or construction of an individual system or element of a system of systems or is performing inherently governmental functions (reference PL Section 802) Inherently Governmental Functions Determinations. If contractor support services are being considered as part of the acquisition strategy, the PM shall solicit and receive written determination from the Installation/Wing Manpower Office identifying if there are military (active or Reserve Component) or civilian employees of the Air Force available to perform the functions and if the required services are inherently governmental, acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions, or otherwise inappropriate for performance by contractor employees. (Reference DODI , Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix, FAR Subpart 7.5, DFARS Subpart (S-70), and Title 10 USC ) Commercial Item Purchase. Commercial purchase determinations and guidance is contained within Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its supplements (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and AF Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS)) Buy American Act (BAA). The BAA was codified in 1933 to provide preferential treatment for domestic sources of un-manufactured articles, manufactured goods, and construction material BAA applies to supplies and construction materials above the micro purchases thresholds and restricts the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products for use within the US. (Reference 10 USC. 10a-10d) For specific guidance and regulations, please follow FAR Part 25 as supplemented by DFARS Part 225 and AFFARS Part Berry Amendment and 10 USC 2533b Compliance. Similar to the BAA, the Berry Amendment and 10 USC 2533b restricts the purchase of specific items to domestic sources unless exempted or waived. The Berry Amendment establishes domestic source preferences for different commodities, including textiles, specialty metals, and machine or hand tools, in DOD acquisitions above the simplified acquisition threshold. 10 USC 2533b establishes domestic source preferences for specialty metals The PM shall ensure that all activities within the acquisition cycle are compliant with 10 USC. 2533a and 2533b unless they have an approved Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD). 10 USC 2533a applies to all food, clothing, tents, cotton and other natural fiber products, and hand or measuring tools; 10 USC 2533b applies to specialty metals A DNAD to the Berry Amendment and 10 USC 2533b may be granted only by the SECAF, another Service Secretary, or OUSD (AT&L) The Berry Amendment applies to contracts and subcontracts for procurement of commercial items, applies to both end products and raw materials and applies to Foreign

109 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Military Sales (FMS) cases. If the end product is comprised of components made of restricted items or materials, those components must also be wholly domestic of origin and manufacture unless either an exception or a waiver exists. (Reference Section 804 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008) For specific guidance and regulations, please follow FAR Part 25 as supplemented by DFARS Part 225 and AFFARS Part Leasing. For specific guidance and regulations governing leasing equipment follow the regulations and guidance found in DFARS 207.4, DOD Financial Management Regulation R and OMB Circulars A-11 and A Serialized Item Management (SIM). The purpose of SIM is to improve the AF s capability to manage materiel through the generation, collection, and analysis of data on individual assets in order to enhance asset visibility, financial accountability, and improved weapon system life cycle management. SIM is enabled through Item Unique Identification (IUID), automatic identification technology (AIT), and automated information systems (AIS). IUID is the assignment and marking of individual assets with a standardized, machine-readable, two-dimensional marking containing a globally unique and unambiguous item identifier. AIT is the technology used to scan the marking at points within the supply chain to identify discrete transactions of an asset as well as transmit the data collected from these transactions to AIS. AIS store and process the data so it can be used to make informed decisions concerning the management of the asset or the system. Reference DODD , Unique Identification (UID) Standards for a Net-Centric Department of Defense, DODI , Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, DOD Guide to Uniquely Identifying Items and DODI , Serialized Item Management (SIM) for Materiel Maintenance, for additional guidance The PM shall ensure all solicitations, contracts or delivery orders that result in the delivery of tangible personal property to the Government include IUID requirements using the DFARS clause , Item Identification and Valuation and, as applicable, DFARS clause , Item Unique Identification of Government Property. This includes service contracts for repair of an unmarked item that results in the delivery of a marked repaired item. Where a contract or delivery order was signed prior to the implementation date of the DFARS clause , the clause will be inserted into the contract or delivery order as soon as feasible, but no later than at a phased event or exercise of a contract option, or other modification of contractual requirements The PM shall require unique identification for assets meeting the following criteria: (For additional guidance see DODI , Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, DOD R, Supply Chain Material Management Regulation, DoD Guide to Uniquely Identifying Items, and AF Manual , USAF Supply Manual, Vol. 1, Part 4 and Vol. 2, Part 13.) Items (a single hardware article or unit formed by a grouping of subassemblies, components, or constituent parts) for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more. For existing items already owned by the Government, this value should be construed as the acquisition value to replace the item.

110 110 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Items for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000, when identified by the managing or requiring activity as serially managed, mission essential, controlled inventory or requiring permanent identification Any DOD serially managed subassembly, component, or part embedded within a delivered item, regardless of value Any parent item (as defined in DFARS (a)) that contains the serially managed embedded subassembly, component, or part IUID criteria apply to government assets and tangible personal property assets owned by the AF in the possession of contractors know as Property in the Possession of Contractors (also generically known as Government Furnished Property (GFP)). Reference DOD Item Unique Identification of Government Property Guidebook for more information IUID requirements shall apply to security assistance programs The PM shall document the SIM strategy including the IUID implementation plan in the LCMP and Information Support Plan (ISP) The PM shall document a plan for IUID in the LCMP. The plan will consider maintenance strategy and ownership of spare parts inventory when determining what assets should be considered for unique identification The PM shall identify in the ISP any system operational needs for data to conduct SIM in order for Unique Item Identifiers (UIIs) to be used as the key field to associate data on tangible personal property assets The PM shall ensure information on marked items is included in the DOD IUID Registry The PM shall prepare an IUID implementation plan for all programs that result in the delivery of tangible personal property items to the Department of Defense and address all items meeting the IUID criteria. The implementation plan will address cost, schedule, impacts on legacy assets in service and in inventory, existing on-going contracts, engineering drawing update strategy, budget requirements, and impacts to FMS. Plans should reflect coordination between program acquisition and sustainment activities, and industry. Additional guidance and a template for the IUID implementation plan can be found in AFPAM The PM shall prepare an initial IUID implementation plan within 90 days of ACAT designation Plans will be approved by the program s MDA (or equivalent for non-acat programs). Adequacy of the IUID implementation plan requirements shall be assessed at all milestone reviews The PM shall review the plan prior to each milestone or at least annually to ensure currency and track progress toward completion until all items used by the program have been uniquely identified IUID Implementation Plans will be consolidated for programs related to the same weapon system in a logical manner while maintaining appropriate visibility on priority programs.

111 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Program planning for AIT infrastructure requirements and/or AIS enhancements to include IUID should occur only if the program is responsible for the management and/or maintenance of AIT and/or AIS Plans should identify the items used by the program that meet the IUID criteria. This includes items managed by the AF, other DOD Components and Agencies, Government agencies outside the DOD, or support contractors The PM shall use AIT for unique identification of items Physical application of a Unique Item Identifier (UII) will follow MIL-STD-130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property Where engineering analysis determines physical application of a UII would destroy the form, fit, or function of an item, an alternate method to uniquely identify the item will be used The PM for MAIS that will store data on tangible personal property assets shall ensure the system can accommodate all needed UII data for the identified assets Military Equipment Valuation (MEV). Military Equipment Valuation is a DOD initiative to capitalize, and depreciate assets, including modifications, to meet federal accounting standards as defined in DOD Instruction , Accountability and Management of DOD- Owned Equipment and Other Accountable Property The PM shall account for all Military Equipment assets subject to capitalization and depreciation Military Equipment is defined as tangible assets that: Have an expected useful life of two or more years; Are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of business; Are intended to be used or are available for use in performance of military missions, to include training; and Meet the capitalization threshold found in the DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) Volume 4, Chapter Military Equipment Valuation: Is required for aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), unmanned air vehicles, pods, satellite launchers and satellites Will not be performed on drones, munitions, initial spares, repair parts, simulators and other ballistic missiles. In addition, other equipment assets (e.g., ground equipment, support equipment, etc.) will be valued as general purpose equipment The PM shall include a military equipment program description as part of the LCMP. At Milestone C/(or any other decision point that leads to production or procurement of end items to be used for operations) for any program, project, product or system that has deliverable end items that meet the capitalization threshold, the program s military equipment description will identify the following deliverables at a detail level consistent with

112 112 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 level 2 of the Program Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (detailed guidance on the work breakdown structures for defense materiel items is located in MIL-HDBK-881): The assets meeting the capitalization thresholds The government furnished material that will be included in the assets Other deliverables that will accompany the assets (e.g., manuals, technical data, etc.) Other types of deliverables that will be bought with program funding (e.g., initial spares, support equipment, etc.) but that cannot be directly attributed to a specific assets The PM shall ensure proper accounting and contractual allocation of program expenditures between capitalized assets and expenses. This shall be completed for every program, project, product, or system that has deliverable assets. Detailed guidance on accounting policy and procedures may be found in DOD R, DOD FMR Volume 4 and at OSD s military equipment website Business/Financial Management Analysts will identify to contracting personnel the items and services to be acquired and segregate them by accounting treatment within the requests for acquisition of services or materiel (e.g., military equipment; operating materials and supplies; inventory; internal use software; expenses). Each type of deliverable must be uniquely distinguishable and identified individually as a separate line item on the requisition The PM shall ensure the gross book value of military equipment assets and modification to those assets are provided to the Air Force s MEV system. The PM shall also ensure the useful life of the assets and modification programs are also provided to the MEV system Contracting Officers will be responsible for creating the proper contract line item (CLIN) and sub-line item (SLIN) to reflect the distinction necessary to facilitate appropriate financial accounting treatment of the military equipment to be acquired. Proposals, solicitations, contracts, and/or orders for or related to the acquisition of military equipment will be structured so that each type of item or service is properly segregated by use of separate CLINs and SLINs Government Cost Estimates. The PM shall update life cycle cost estimates in accordance with AFPD 65-5, Cost and Economics, and AFMAN , Economic Analysis, and compare them to the program budget to assess program executability. Risk assessments and sensitivity analyses will be performed as level of knowledge and assumptions change. The acquisition strategy must address the estimated program cost and the planned program funding, to include advance procurement. See DOD R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMRS) Vol. 2A for more details Cost Realism. All participants over the life cycle of a system shall view cost as an independent variable and plan programs based on realistic projections of the funding and staffing likely to be available in the future. As a minimum, during reviews the MDA shall be provided with cost estimates at the mean confidence level and the 80% confidence level. The PM should consider providing the MDA with estimates at a cumulative density function (S curve) to show

113 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST varying levels of confidence. The program funding should also be identified on the chart with its corresponding confidence level. To the greatest extent possible, the PM shall identify the TOC and the major drivers to this cost. Realistic program planning assumptions should be developed to ensure adequate analysis of life cycle cost, schedule, and performance risks. This will be documented in the Program Office Estimate, which is generally developed from the Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) for major programs or a similar document for less than major programs. These cost estimates shall be reconciled with the contractor s proposal prior to award. Refer to DFARS 215 for additional information For MDAP and MAIS programs, state the confidence level used in establishing the cost estimate and the rationale for selecting it for cost estimates used in support of MS A, MS B, MS C, LRIP, Full Rate Production, any certification under 10 USC 2366a, 2366b, or 2433a, any report under 10 USC 2445c, or as specified by appropriate authority. If the confidence level is less than 80%, also provide the justification for selecting the lower confidence level The confidence level statement shall be included in the ADM approving the APB and with any other cost estimates for MDAP and MAIS prepared in association with the estimates identified above, and for MDAPs, in the next SAR report prepared in compliance with 10 USC 2432, and for MAIS, in the next quarterly report prepared in compliance with 10 USC 2445c. Reference the US Air Force Cost Risk and Uncertainty Handbook for more information All Air Force ACAT I and II program cost estimates shall provide decision-makers with a range of potential costs based upon a robust assessment of, and accounting for, cost, technical, and schedule uncertainty for each program. Each cost estimate and associated risk assessment shall be established using approved Air Force cost estimating procedures and shall consider technical, schedule, and programmatic risk assessments from qualified program personnel and independent subject-matter experts in order to produce a cost estimate distribution or, where a distribution cannot be computed, a range of potential program costs To establish sufficient program funding, the MDA for an ACAT I or II program shall use the cost estimate distribution to make a deliberate choice of the cost estimate confidence level for the program. The selection of the appropriate program cost estimate confidence level is at the discretion of the MDA, however, an ACAT I and II program budget shall not be established at a confidence level lower than the mean of the program cost estimate distribution (typically 55 65% confidence level) or, where a distribution cannot be computed, the expected value of the cost estimate. For Air Force ACAT ID programs, SAF/AQ and SAF/US shall, in concert with SAF/FM, apply this approach in formulating the Service Cost Position When selecting a confidence level, the MDA shall consider program-specific requirements, schedule, and technical maturity issues, as well as interrelationships with other programs and program increments, and any other relevant environmental considerations. The cost estimate confidence level shall be documented in the ADM and other deliverables/documents as required. The same approach should also be followed for programs below ACAT II Independent Cost Estimates are required for MDAPs and MAIS programs in advance of: (1) MS A, MS B, LRIP, and full rate production; (2) Any certification pursuant to

114 114 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 sections 2366a, 2366b, or 2433a of title 10, U.S.C.; (3) Any report pursuant to section 2445c of title 10 U.S.C.; and (4) At any time specified by the MDA or the D,CAPE Estimating agencies shall state the confidence level used in establishing the cost estimate. This confidence level statement shall be included in the ADM approving the APB; it will also be included in any other cost estimates for MDAPS or MAIS programs prepared in association with the estimates identified above For MDAPs, the confidence level statement shall also be included in the next selected acquisition report prepared in compliance with section 2432 of title 10 U.S.C., and for MAIS, in the next quarterly report prepared in compliance with section 2445c of title 10 U.S.C Budget Stability. Acquisition program budget perturbations are a fact of life. However there are still actions a PM can take to document budget history and ensure budget decisions are made based on current and accurate information. The PM shall at a minimum complete the following: Maintain a realistic cost estimate and ensure it is well documented to firmly support budget requests, enlist user advocacy for the program via the AF Program Objective Memorandums (POM), or initially included as part of the Course of Action (COA) effort Ensure funding for the execution year(s) is consistent with the contractor s ability to expend the funding according to the current program schedule; reassess throughout the program s life cycle and make sure the data continues to firmly support budget requests; and if not, enlist user advocacy for the program when necessary. The key is to keep program funding phased correctly and emphasize meeting OSD expenditure and obligation goals. See DOD R, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 2A, for more detail Develop a range of independent estimates at completion from cost data and analysis of the IMS. Compare the results to the contractor s projected final costs to assess realism and to form the basis for adjusting the program budget Reflect budget changes in the PMA as required Management Information Systems and Program Control Metrics. Whenever possible, the PM should use the contractor s management information and program control systems and associated metrics rather than impose unique requirements. It is the PM s responsibility to assess the value and benefits of these items and to ask only for those items that are essential to the effort. The PM shall assure that this data is in a structured format, is made available to the government through an electronic interface and meets contractual requirements Unliquidated Obligations (ULO). The PM shall conduct periodic analysis of unliquidated obligation(s) (ULO) balances to ensure deobligation of funds without a valid requirement. The analysis shall as a minimum include ULO balances, reason each ULO exists, estimated date of liquidating the ULO balances, and any amount to be deobligated. For programs using the Transportation Working Capital Fund the PM shall additionally track expenses and conduct periodic analysis of accrued expenditures unpaid (AEU) balances to ensure funds are expended in the year given. The analysis shall include AEU balances, reason for AEU balance, estimated date of moving AEU, accrued expenses paid (AEP), and any amount that will be expensed in the following year.

115 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Use of Specifications and Standards. Specifications and standards may be used in solicitations to define essential standard practices (e.g., system safety and parts management) and technical requirements (e.g., materiel interoperability and support requirements) and manage risk. Specific DOD policy on the use of specifications and standards and other methods to achieve objectives required by 10 USC , DODD and DODI are contained in DOD M, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Policies and Procedures. AF guidance is contained in AFI , Materiel Standardization Program Protection Planning. The PM and/or Chief Engineer/Lead Engineer (CE/LE) must ensure critical technologies, systems, and information identified as Critical Program Information (CPI) are protected to prevent loss, theft, or compromise that could yield any of the following negative consequences: impact cost, schedule, performance, or supportability; force a change in program direction; degrade systems capabilities; shorten the useful life of the system; enable unauthorized transfer of technology; or require additional resources to develop countermeasures. Program protection planning applies to all phases of the system s life cycle including capability planning activities, technology research, development program efforts, modification efforts, and continues through sustainment and disposal. Program protection planning must involve all stakeholders including the operating and other participating commands. Reference DOD M, Acquisition Systems Protection Program, DODI , Critical Program Information (CPI) Protection within the Department of Defense, and AFPAM , Program Protection Planning (will convert to AFMAN , Program Protection Planning for Life Cycle Management) for more information The PM and/or CE/LE shall accomplish protection on technology and programs by using systems engineering processes to perform a functional decomposition of the technology/system to determine if CPI exists in the project/program The requirement to complete program protection analysis cannot be waived or exempted. In addition, non-af funded programs using AFRL or AF program personnel will comply with this requirement The applicable PM and/or CE/LE shall develop a Program Protection Plan (PPP) for the technology or program if CPI are identified If the PM and/or CE/LE determines there is no CPI associated with the technology or program (neither internal to the program nor inherited from a supporting program), a PPP is not required. Approval not to develop a PPP must be obtained in writing from the AFRL/CC, the MDA, or the ALC/CC commensurate with the execution authority of the activity The PM and/or CE/LE shall provide for protection planning (including cost considerations) at all CPI locations until the PM and/or CE/LE makes the determination that protection is no longer required. MAJCOMs shall ensure compliance at all user locations until the PM determines CPI no longer exists and that protection is no longer required CPI protection begins once a military unique capability is identified during technology research and development, during the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase, or any other time CPI is identified and continues throughout the life cycle. The CPI continues to be protected through all phases in the technology s life cycle including

116 116 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 capability planning, acquisition, sustainment, modification, developmental and operational testing, and through retirement and disposal Incidents of loss, compromise, or theft of CPI shall be reported in accordance with DODI , Reporting Of Counterintelligence and Criminal Violations and DOD R, Information Security Program, as well as the criteria for defensive Information Operations (IO) reporting established by AFPD 10-7, Information Operations and AFI , Defensive Counterinformation Planning, Operations and Assessment Technology protection is a Common Core Compliance Area (CCCA) as outlined in AFI , Inspector General Activities Program Protection Plans (PPP) The PM and/or CE/LE shall prepare a PPP as soon as practicable after CPI are identified and submit the PPP to the approval authority for review and approval. The need for a PPP may occur at any time during the life cycle of the program to include modifications or upgrades. Typical triggers for developing a PPP are identification of CPI, receipt of an ICD, CDD, PMD, CPD or AoA, or following mission assignment. Refer to AFPAM , for the recommended procedures to create a PPP and DODI for the minimum required elements of the PPP AFRL/CC is the approval authority for technology programs unless the activity is at a battlelab or warfare center. For protection plans generated by the battlelabs and warfare centers, the approval authority is the commander/director The MDA is the approval authority for ACAT programs The PM and/or CE/LE shall coordinate the PPP with the all stakeholders including the operating, implementing and participating commands, acquiring agency, and intelligence community, as applicable The PM and/or CE/LE shall apply common security measures for protecting similar CPI that are used by more than one program to ensure horizontal protection. The PM and/or CE/LE shall ensure horizontal protection through the distribution of the approved, signed PPP plan to any related or affected programs or subsystems for incorporation into their PPP The PM shall review and update as necessary the PPP at MS B and MS C, as required by changes to acquisition program status, or by changes in the actual or projected threat, or reviewed and updated at least every three years The PPP shall be maintained throughout the life of the CPI. Ownership and responsibility for the PPP shall transfer to the PM solely when a technology is incorporated into a system and remains with the PM throughout the life cycle of the system The PM, in coordination with SAF/AQL, and the supporting systems engineering function, shall identify, plan, program, develop, implement, and validate anti tamper (AT) measures, if necessary. The AT Plan will be integrated into and maintained as a classified annex to the PPP. Refer to DODI , the DOD AT website, and contact the Air Force Anti-Tamper OPR for additional information.

117 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM and/or CE/LE shall ensure the principles of Systems Security Engineering (SSE) are applied to their technology and acquisition programs throughout the life cycle as an essential element of systems protection. SSE ensures time-phased, affordable security protection alternatives and requirements are integrated into the weapon system and supporting subsystems security architecture in order to reduce system susceptibility to damage, compromise, or destruction; and to support the identification, evaluation, and elimination or containment of system vulnerabilities to known or postulated security threats in the operational environment. Other required equipment and supporting facilities should be integrated using risk management principles For ACAT programs the PM and/or CE/LE will establish the Systems Security Working Group (SSWG) as early as possible but not later than MS B. Working in concert with the PM and/or CE/LE, the SSWG defines and identifies all SSE aspects of the system, develops SSE architecture, reviews the implementation of the architecture, and participates in design validation. For development or non-acat programs or projects, the PM and/or CE/LE will ensure an Integrated Product Team (IPT) process is used to conduct program protection planning. The SSWG or IPT is comprised of technology developers, acquisition and sustainment program office personnel; testers, supporting counterintelligence (CI), intelligence, and security personnel; system user representatives; and other concerned parties supporting the PM and/or CE/LE The PM and/or CE/LE develop a Counterintelligence Support Plan (CISP) for each PPP in coordination with their servicing AF Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) research and technology protection specialist. The plans will address defensive Information Operations (IO) and CI support for the life cycle of the system or technology Special Access Programs (SAP) due to their unique nature are not required to comply with Program Protection Planning. However, the programs must comply once SAP provisions are removed. The PM and/or CE for a collateral program will collaborate with SAF/AAZ when SAP information is involved to determine a prudent protection approach prior to developing a PPP Information Support Plans (ISP). The Information Support Plan (ISP) describes and evaluates needs including intelligence, infrastructure, interoperability, and other Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS) interfaces that the acquisition program needs during development, testing, training, operations and disposal. The ISP also documents current/projected deficiencies in intelligence support required to develop the weapon system capability. Additional guidance on ISPs can be found in: the Defense Acquisition Guidebook; DOD Directive , Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS); DODI , Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS); and CJCSI , Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology and National Security Systems (NSS) The PM shall prepare the ISP, which documents the information support needed to develop warfighter capabilities described in the ICD, CDD, and Capability Production Document (CPD) The PM shall prepare an ISP for IT and NSS programs regardless of ACAT and for systems in sustainment that exchange information with external systems or reside on the

118 118 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Global Information Grid (GIG). The Lead Command, as part of the requirements process and identification of Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP), shall identify IT and NSS interoperability requirements, infrastructure, and other support requirements early in the life cycle. This information will form the basis of the ISP The PM shall update the ISP due to a modification to an IT/NSS system to reflect any impact that the modification may have on their NR-KPP. ISPs that do not have an NR- KPP will have a NR-KPP section added For systems that will be part of a Family of Systems or System of Systems (FoS/SoS), an ISP is required unless waived. If the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)/Cognizant Fielding Authority for the FoS/SoS approve, an annex to the FoS/SoS ISP may be developed to meet ISP requirements for a new system that is part of a FoS/SoS PMs that do not believe their IT or NSS system requires the development of an ISP shall submit a request to waive the ISP requirement through SAF/XCP to OASD/NII /DOD- Chief Information Officer (CIO) An approved initial ISP is required not later than MS B (or appropriate and related milestone-like event (for non-acat)) and should be initially developed concurrently and collaboratively with the associated CDD, unless exceptions are noted in an ADM. The PM shall prepare the updated final ISP for the MS C Decision Review concurrently and collaboratively with the associated CPD. As the program matures or proceeds through multiple evolutionary blocks, phases, or modifications, the Program Manager shall update the ISP as needed The program office must coordinate with the supporting intelligence office or AFMC/A2 to develop the intelligence appendix to the Information Support Plan. Intelligence appendices to ISPs supporting AFSPC programs must be reviewed and approved by the supporting intelligence office, AFSPC/A2, and AF/A2. Before the plan is submitted to the MDA, the intelligence appendix to the ISP must be approved by the supporting intelligence office, AFSPC, AFMC, or AF/A ISP Reviews. ISPs prepared for Milestone Decision Reviews must first undergo the formal ISP review process before they can be approved. ACAT I, ACAT IA, and special interest programs are reviewed at both the Air Force and Joint level. ACAT II and below are reviewed at the Air Force level only. The PM will enter the ISPs into the Air Force C4I Program Assessment Tool (APAT) to initiate the automated review process. Reference the Air Force Program Manager s Guide for Developing, Processing, and Approving ISPs for more information on the development, review, coordination, and approval of Information Support Plans ISP Approval. The MDA or ALC/CC (for non-space systems in sustainment) shall review, assess, and approve ISPs for ACAT and sustainment programs at each Milestone Decision Review. The PM shall consider the ISP for making DSOR recommendations ISP Support. At the end of MS B or equivalent, the PM will ensure all support concept elements are fully identified with supporting documentation Additional ISP policy guidance can be found on the Information Support Plan Policy CoP.

119 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning. As part of a long-term DOD corrosion prevention and control strategy that supports reduction of total cost of system ownership, the PM shall document a Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan. The Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan shall be required at MS B and C as part of the LCMP/Acquisition Strategy and SEP. Corrosion considerations shall be objectively evaluated throughout program design and development activities, with trade-offs made through an open and transparent assessment of alternatives. See DODI , Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, for additional guidance. Additional information including the DOD Corrosion and Prevention Guidebook can be found at Home - CorrDefense The Air Force designated Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive (CCPE) is the senior Air Force Corrosion Control and Prevention Enterprise official. The CCPE is responsible for coordinating AF-level corrosion control and prevention activities, advocating for corrosion prevention and mitigation, and evaluating the effectiveness of AF corrosion prevention and mitigation AFMC, PMs, and PGMs shall provide data as requested by the AF CCPE to support the evaluation and reporting of AF corrosion control and prevention activities and identify funding levels necessary for providing corrosion prevention and mitigation throughout the system s life cycle The PM shall incorporate the DOD ban on the use of Cr6+ in their long-term corrosion prevention planning. This ban applies to all programs regardless of ACAT or life cycle phase The PM shall obtain PEO or ALC/CC approval for any new or continued use of Cr6+. In order to approve the request to use Cr6+, the PEO or ALC/CC must certify that there is no acceptable alternative for the requested use. The PM will obtain AF CCPE concurrence on all approval requests prior to submittal to the PEO or ALC/CC To enable the PEO or ALC/CC to make this certification, the PM must demonstrate the assured availability of Cr6+ for the period of the requested approval and one or more of the following findings concerning the available alternatives: (1) unacceptable life cycle cost increases; (2) technically not feasible; (3) Serious or High ESOH risks (based on MIL-STD-882D); (4) MRL of 7 or less; (5) lack of assured availability for the period of the requested approval; or (6) unacceptable corrosion prevention performance. Additional guidance on documenting Cr6+ usage and elimination efforts in the PESHE is provided in the PESHE section of this document System Survivability. The AF will address survivability requirements and performance parameters for a system s entire life cycle based on the capabilities of that system. System developers will review all capability documents to assess how these survivability requirements apply to their program. System survivability assessment, based on system concept of operations and validated threat assessment, shall be considered during SE and HSI planning. This planning should be in conjunction with affordability, schedule, and performance considerations. Designing, testing, and/or analysis during the acquisition process will be carried out against specific performance attributes Capability document sponsors will develop and define the survivability requirements for each system, including designating the level of survivability that a system must have in

120 120 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 the operational environment for which it is intended. The sponsors will plan for all resource requirements to satisfy survivability requirements The PM shall integrate validated survivability requirements into the systems engineering process from the earliest possible stages of program planning and throughout the life cycle. In addition to previously stated documents, this paragraph also implements survivability policy and guidance found in Public Law , Section 141 Development of Deployable Systems to Include Consideration of Force Protection in Asymmetric Threat Environment, and Section 1053, Survivability of Critical Systems Exposed to Chemical and Biological Contamination; DODD , DOD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program; MIL-HDBK-237, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects and Spectrum Certification Guidance for the Acquisition Process; 50 USC 1522, Conduct of Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) The PM shall follow the guidance outlined in the above referenced documents and comply with documentation and reporting procedures as specified in each. If the system will provide an urgent operational need, full compliance with survivability is not expected until FOC. When there is an incremental acquisition or the system is modified, the lead command, PM, and lead operational test organization will conduct a survivability review to assess how the increments/modifications affect the survivability of the system The PM shall include the system survivability requirements, the system s threat assessment, and a summary of the program s overall plan for addressing survivability in the LCMP, TEMP, and SEP and other life cycle documents as applicable If a system requires hardening to survive against nuclear, ballistic, chemical, biological, high power microwave, or laser threats, the PM shall implement a hardness assurance, maintenance, and surveillance (HAMS) program. (Reference DNA-H , Military Handbook for Hardness Assurance, Maintenance, and Surveillance (HAMS)) During technical, program, and Milestone decision reviews, the PM will provide an assessment of the system s survivability in the anticipated battlefield environment. For any identified shortfalls in meeting survivability requirements, the PM will provide a plan for meeting requirements prior to key testing and operational events. At MS C, the MDA will verify compliance with survivability requirements Survivability requirements apply to COTS/NDI Arms Control Compliance. The PM shall ensure all activities within the acquisition cycle are compliant with all United States Government arms control obligations. The PM shall ensure SAF/GC, AF/A3/5 (for compliance with arms control agreements) and AF/JA (for compliance with international law) review all weapons for legality at the earliest possible stage, whether new acquisitions or modification of existing weapons. This assessment will occur prior to all Milestone reviews or when concerns arise. If necessary, the PM shall seek (with AF/A3/5 assistance) clearance to undertake or continue the activity in question from the appropriate Arms Control Compliance Review Group. PMs who oversee acquisition programs involving strategic weapons (e.g., bombs, warheads), their delivery vehicles (e.g., ballistic missiles, bombers, and cruise missiles, including their associated basing, testing, and launch facilities), or chemical and biological weapon defense-related materials and equipment should become aware of the implications and limitations that arms control treaties may have on or impact their program(s).

121 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Refer to AFI , Implementation of, and Compliance With, Arms Control Agreements and AFI , Weapons Review, for additional guidance Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Security Assistance (SA). International relationships are a critical component of U.S. national security and its commitment to promoting democratic institutions, world peace, and global security. Security Assistance (SA) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives by enabling the United States to build, sustain, expand, and guide international partnerships that are critical enablers for its national security objectives SA programs allow the transfer of military articles and services to friendly foreign governments. These transfers are also conducted using Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs) between the U.S. Government and an authorized foreign purchaser and may be carried out via authorized sales, grants, or leases under the premise that if these transfers are essential to the security and economic well-being of allied Governments and international organizations, they are equally vital to the security and economic well-being of the United States. SA programs support U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives by increasing the ability of our friends and allies to deter and defend against possible aggression, promoting the sharing of common defense burdens, and helping to foster regional stability. SA is witnessed by: the delivery of defense weapon systems to allied and friendly foreign governments and international organizations; U.S. Service schools training international students; U.S. personnel advising other governments on ways to improve their internal defense capabilities; and U.S. personnel providing guidance and assistance in establishing infrastructures and economic basis to achieve and maintain regional stability FMS is that portion of U.S. security assistance authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, as amended. It differs from other forms of assistance in that the recipient provides reimbursement for defense articles and services transferred. The FMS program is conducted using LOAs which are agreements between the United States Government and an authorized foreign purchaser. These agreements authorize the sale of military equipment and services to allied and friendly foreign governments and international organizations. SAF/AQ, as the SAE, is responsible for acquisition policy, program management, and execution of all AF FMS acquisition cases and will work with SAF/IA and HQ AFMC to accomplish necessary tasks For clarity, program management responsibility for FMS programs is limited to elements/tasks contained in a government-to-government agreement and specifically implemented for execution to the PM, through the appropriate accountability reporting chain, by the assigned DOD component authority over the specific agreement Management of AF Training Systems. Management of training systems requires close coordination between lead and using commands and the acquisition and sustainment community. Refer to AFI , Management of Air Force Training Systems, for specific requirements and responsibilities associated with the acquisition and sustainment of training systems, including aircrew mission training systems, maintenance training systems, and training services attendant to AF weapon systems. The PM shall apply AFI , to ensure the OSS&E of training systems. Training systems that have been designated as stand-alone acquisition programs shall be governed by a PMD.

122 122 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM shall contact the weapon system Training System Product Group Manager (TS-PGM) or equivalent prior to/at program initiation to develop and assign organizational responsibilities for the acquisition and sustainment of training systems for the weapon system. Weapon system PMs shall coordinate their program plans and activities with the TS- PGM, specific training system PMs, lead and using commands, and HQ Air Education and Training Command (AETC) as necessary to meet training system life cycle cost, schedule, and performance requirements As appropriate, the PM or their designees shall participate in Training Planning Teams (TPT) activities including accomplishing the Training System Requirements Analysis (TSRA) and the development of System Training Plans (STPs). Lead commands will determine when TPTs, TSRAs and STPs are required. The PM will coordinate on STPs prepared by lead commands As requested, the PM shall assist lead and using command modernization planning and POM development efforts, including the analysis of training system needs, materiel and non-materiel alternatives, development of capability documents, and preparation of budget materials The PM shall include weapon system training concepts and training system requirements in all LCMPs prepared for, and subsequent to, MS B. As appropriate, the PM will include the TS-PGM, training system PMs, lead and using commands, and HQ AETC during the development of weapon system acquisition strategies, program plans, and pertinent contract documents such as System Requirements Documents The PM shall ensure training systems remain current with prime mission systems throughout the life cycle of a weapon system, in accordance with approved program management directives and funding. The PM shall ensure training system requirements are included in all post-production system modification/upgrade programs conducted for prime mission systems The PM shall, with lead and using commands, determine the training system fielding requirements necessary to support the fielding of prime weapon systems and equipment. The PM shall coordinate training system product acceptance, movement, and delivery matters with the lead and using commands that will receive the training system(s) The PM shall assist lead and using commands with management and reporting of training system concurrency matters (e.g., AF/A3/5 data calls) The PM shall manage and execute the disposal of training devices in accordance with federal acquisition regulation and supplements, AFMAN , and AFI , Retaining and Transferring Materiel, as applicable. PMs will coordinate actions for the declassification and demilitarization of training devices, the removal and repatriation of weapon system-common equipment, and the disposal of hazardous materiels prior to the shipment of training devices to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) or other final resting places End Use Certificates. The AF purchases products produced by allies and friendly countries, and participates in cooperative development programs to 1) promote interoperability, standardization, and an expanded procurement base, and 2) to obtain products that best meet U.S. needs at the lowest cost. An End Use Certificate (EUC) may be necessary to facilitate purchases

123 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST of foreign products when the purchase of such products is in the best interest of the United States. An EUC applies to all personnel who purchase, use, and dispose of restricted items from a foreign vendor. See DODD , End Use Certificates (EUC), for more details When an EUC is necessary or requested by foreign governments they can be divided into three categories: Category I. Applies to acquisition items classified for security purposes by a foreign government and covered by the nonproliferation agreements to which the United States is a party (such as missile technology). This permits the item to be used by or for the U.S. Government in any part of the world and transfer by means of grant aid, International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs, FMS, and other security assistance and armaments cooperation authorities Category II. Applies to all other items not defined as either Category I or III Category III. USD (AT&L) must grant a waiver for items that require Category III EUCs as it limits the right to use an item by or for the U.S. Government in any part of the world; or to provide the item to allies engaged together with the United States in armed conflict with a common enemy The SECAF, or a delegated civilian officer, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the approval authority for Category I and II EUCs. To purchase an item with a Category III EUC, the SECAF or the SECAF representative must request authority from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) EUCs originating in development and test centers require AF/TE review prior to requesting formal approval The following procedures shall be used to request formal approval for the purchase of foreign items for each EUC category as indicated: Category I EUC The PM shall prepare a package requesting permission to purchase an item requiring EUC. The request includes the item s name, nomenclature, and purpose; justification of need; and any other purchasing options Test center commanders will notify AF/TE when requesting permission to purchase an item requiring a EUC. The request includes the item s name, nomenclature, and purpose; justification of need; and any other purchasing options The PEO, DAO, or AF/TE, in coordination with the applicable CD, requests approval to purchase an item requiring a EUC from the approval authority Category II EUC PMs or test center commanders will follow approval process as outlined for Category I The approval authority must notify USD(AT&L) at least 21 calendar days prior to approving the request of the intent to purchase an item with a Category II EUC. Notification to USD (AT&L) must include a description of the recommended

124 124 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 item and all limitations imposed on it by the exporting government. The approval authority may assume that USD (AT&L) concurs with the purchase if it does not receive a response by the end of the 21-day period Category III EUC To justify a waiver, PMs or test center commanders will follow approval process as outlined for Category I, and the PM or center commander must specify: The reasons the US Government would benefit from purchasing the foreign item; The limitations imposed by the exporting government and their justification; The cost, schedule, or operational requirements that could not be filled by any satisfactory alternative, either domestic or foreign The SECAF, or a delegated civilian officer, requests policy waivers from USD(AT&L) If USD (AT&L) grants a policy waiver, then signature authority is delegated to the PEO, DAO, or AF/TE The PEO, DAO, or AF/TE signatory must sign two original EUCs and provide both to the PM The designated PM or test center commander will: Transmit the two signed originals to personnel representing the foreign government for signature. The foreign government will keep one original and return the second to SAF/AQ which forwards a copy to the PM or test center commander Send copies of the form to the PEO, DAO, or AF/TE and to USD(AT&L) Notify major command (MAJCOM) headquarters of the EUC approval and explain any restrictions on the use, transfer, or disposal of the item s hardware, technology, and associated technical data. Command Headquarters must notify users of the EUC restrictions Upon receiving a proposal to waive the EUC restrictions from the MAJCOM, the PM or test center commander must immediately request permission from the originating foreign government. The PM or test center commander must then advise MAJCOM Headquarters, the approval authority, and USD (AT&L) of the foreign government s response MAJCOM headquarters must ensure AF compliance with EUC restrictions and advise the SECAF, or a delegated civilian officer, of any proposal that would require a waiver of EUC restrictions MAJCOMs will develop procedures for identifying, cataloging, controlling, and disposing of items with EUCs. Section 3C Life Cycle Systems Engineering Requirements

125 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Life Cycle Systems Engineering (SE). Life cycle Systems Engineering (SE) is addressed in AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, which will take precedence if there are any conflicts. Application of SE fundamentals must begin with concept inception, and must cover all efforts across all life cycle phases, to include sustainment and disposal. All AF products and systems must exhibit and preserve attributes of OSS&E and mission assurance throughout their operational life SE addresses architecting, requirements development and management, design, technical management and control, and test and evaluation (T&E) / verification and validation (V&V). These fundamental elements must be accomplished on all development, acquisition, and sustainment efforts to develop a relevant technical knowledge base that is matured, maintained, and transferred in a disciplined manner. They are not to be implemented independently but must be integrated to mutually reinforce each other SE enables the technical aspects of Development Planning (DP). SE during DP ( Early SE ) produces concepts (prospective materiel solutions to operational capability needs) that track to operational and functional (e.g., sustainability, reliability, producibility, etc.) needs. Early SE products provide high-quality decision support information to inform sponsors and decision makers, prior to initiating an acquisition program, about the feasibility of concepts to address identified capability needs Concept developers will employ Early SE in support of DP efforts. AFI identifies principal Early SE activities and products, their linkage with the JCIDS CBA, and their relationship to pre- and post-mdd events (ref thru ) Governance, management, and execution of DP efforts prior to MDD fall under the oversight of the implementing command, and beyond MDD fall under the authority of the MDA. Prospective programs that have already completed or are in the late stages of an AoA, if directed to go back to accomplish a MDD, may use AoA documentation in support of MDD rather than developing new documentation unique to Early SE AF SE Management Responsibilities. PM and Chief/Lead Engineer responsibilities are typically not formally assigned prior to MS A. For early capability development efforts, such as science and technology (S&T) and concept studies, the term program refers to the specific activity; for those efforts a designated project or capability manager performs the SE tasks identified herein as PM and Chief/Lead Engineer responsibilities. ALC and related post-ms C SE efforts may be assigned to the applicable PM, PGM (including software), Commodity Manager, or AFGLSC as AF Supply Chain Manager (SCM). PMs and Chief/Lead Engineers must include relevant performance incentives in contract solicitation, evaluation, award, and execution processes Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). The Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) documents the organizations, authorities, roles and responsibilities, processes, and integration used to plan, evaluate, execute, and manage the technical aspects of a program. AFI identifies SEP requirements for all AF efforts, including those that may not formally be identified as programs (e.g., pre-acquisition activities or modifications managed at a Logistics or Test Center). To facilitate entry into formal acquisition, managers of pre-acquisition efforts shall ensure that documentation of analysis and technical planning is compatible with SEP requirements for MS A and B. The SEP should be developed in concert with the technical

126 126 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 planning supporting the acquisition strategy, the ICD, and other relevant predecessor documents. The SEP must be reviewed annually, and updated as required throughout the life cycle Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH). The PM must eliminate Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) hazards where possible and shall manage risks of hazards that cannot be avoided. Refer to AFI Atch. 4 for a more complete discussion of ESOH requirements Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E)/Mission Assurance OSS&E is an integrated effort to ensure that base-lined characteristics of systems and end items are not allowed to degrade as a result of operational use, configuration changes, maintenance repairs, aging, parts substitutions, and similar activities. The PM must assure OSS&E throughout the life cycle of each configuration of the system by working collaboratively with members of the operational, maintenance/sustainment, and test communities. The PM shall ensure historical OSS&E data is considered during the development of new systems. Reference AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Atch Mission Assurance is the integrated engineering-level assessment of analysis, production, verification, validation, operation, maintenance, and problem resolution processes performed over the life cycle of a system or end item, by which an operator/user determines that there is an acceptable level of risk to its employment to deliver an intended capability in an intended environment. The objective of the assurance process is to identify and mitigate design, production, and test deficiencies that could impact mission success Human Systems Integration (HSI). The PM shall integrate manpower, personnel, training, human factors engineering, safety and occupational health, personnel survivability, environment, and habitability considerations into the Systems Engineering process. The acquisition strategy should identify HSI responsibilities, describe the technical and management approach for meeting HSI requirements, briefly summarize the planning for each of the above elements of HSI, define the division or roles and responsibilities with ESOH for the overlapping domains of safety and occupational health, and summarize major elements of the associated training system. Reference AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Atch 5 for more information Maintenance Engineering/Sustaining Engineering (ME/SE). Maintenance Engineering/ Sustaining Engineering (ME/SE) involves the review, assessment, definition, and resolution of hardware deficiencies revealed throughout the life cycle, including development and production as well as operational service. PMs and Chief/Lead Engineers shall employ ME/SE principles throughout the system s life cycle. Reference AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Atch 6 for more information Configuration Management (CM). The PM shall ensure the use of Configuration Management (CM) functions to establish and maintain consistency of product/system attributes with requirements and configuration information throughout the entire life cycle. Product and system characteristics, including components, key processes, and methods used to verify compliance with design and performance requirements, must be documented Product and System Integrity. The PM and Chief/Lead Engineers are responsible for ensuring that product/system-level performance and safety requirements will be met under any

127 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST combination of design usage environments throughout the operational life of a product or weapon system. Processes that must be addressed to ensure product/system integrity include design, configuration management, system safety, manufacturing, quality management, test, maintenance, inspection, supply chain management, flight operations, and mishap investigation. Reference AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Atch 7 for more information on implementing these processes. Reference AFI , Aircraft Information Programs, to implement data collection and distribution capabilities that support these processes Quality Management. The PM and Chief/Lead Engineers are responsible for assuring the delivery of quality products and services. Policy for addressing program quality management is contained in AFI , Air Force Acquisition Quality Program Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). In accordance with AFI , an aircraft-specific ASIP is required for each Mission Design Series (MDS) of aircraft (manned or unmanned) the AF acquires, uses or leases. Each ASIP shall be developed, documented, approved, and executed according to MIL-HDBK-1530, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) Aircraft Weapon System Integrity Program. An aircraft-specific aircraft weapon system integrity program shall be developed, documented, approved, and executed according to MIL-HDBK-515 (USAF), Weapon System Integrity Guide (WSIG) Propulsion Systems Integrity Program. An aircraft-specific propulsion systems integrity program shall be developed, documented, approved, and executed according to MIL-STD-3024, Propulsion System Integrity Program Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program. An aircraft-specific mechanical equipment structural integrity program shall be developed, documented, approved and executed according to MIL-STD-1798, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystem Integrity Program Avionics Integrity Program. An aircraft-specific avionics/electronics integrity program shall be developed, documented, approved, and executed Aircraft Information Program. All Air Force weapons systems requiring airworthiness certification shall have an Aircraft Information Program (AIP) to evaluate and integrate weapon system information requirements. These weapons systems shall employ an information recording capability consisting of those components deemed necessary to meet the collection, processing, storage, distribution and reporting needs of processes such as mishap investigation, integrity programs, Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance, and Condition-Based Maintenance. This systematic approach to integrating all data requirements is essential to ensure capture of critical information and optimization of benefit while minimizing overall cost. Reference AFPD 62-6, USAF Aircraft Airworthiness Certification, and AFI , Aircraft Information Program (AIP) Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorders. Provide a crash-survivable data collection capability for mishap investigation, including parametric (i.e. flight data recorder) and acoustic (i.e. cockpit voice recorder) data. Employ devices such as Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB), and Crash Position Indicator (CPI) to enable the recovery of the crew and information recording devices in the event of a mishap.

128 128 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance (MFOQA). A platform-specific MFOQA program is required for each MDS the AF acquires or uses (manned, unmanned, and leased) per AFPD 90-13, Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance. MFOQA provides insight into the operational usage of the aerial system, supporting OSS&E through analysis of flight maneuvers and identification of hazardous trends, facilitating risk assessment and mitigation activities Software Engineering. Programs and developmental efforts must address key software focus areas throughout the life cycle, beginning with pre-ms A activities. These focus areas will be incorporated as appropriate in the SEP, or acquisition plans. Consideration should be given to application of Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) and Open Technology Development (OTD) principles, and software assurance. PEOs/DAOs may tailor the implementation of these focus areas as required, and the SAE will be notified of all tailoring. Reference AFI , Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Atch 8 for more information Value Engineering (VE). All AF systems, subsystems, equipment and products are candidates for value engineering (VE) procedures and processes, except those specifically exempted by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Part 48. For more information reference FAR AF personnel charged with procuring systems, subsystems, equipment and products will comply with FAR Parts 48 and 52 when dealing with suppliers. Voluntary participation via Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) will be the primary means to achieve contractor support When resources permit, an in-house VE program to review and analyze internal AF processes with the goal of reducing the cost of doing business is encouraged. A Value Engineering Proposal (VEP) documents the effort Systems Engineering in Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The IMP/IMS must capture key SE events, activities, and criteria; contain sufficient detail about SE efforts, resources, monitoring, and control; and be integrated at all levels System Compatibility and Interoperability. The PM shall identify and assess the potential impacts on technical, schedule, cost, and funding critical path issues of meeting system compatibility and interoperability requirements for independent AF or joint operations. DOD M, DODI and AFI provide guidance on considering applicable U.S. ratified international standardization agreements (ISAs) for compatibility, interoperability, and logistics interchangeability of materiel in allied and coalition operations For joint, allied and coalition operations, the PM shall consider compatibility and interoperability attributes (e.g., databases, fuel, transportability, ammunition) that may need to be identified and require verification to ensure a capability is interoperable IAW CJCSM The PM shall consider future multinational operations in the acquisition of all materiel intended for use by U.S. Forces DODI , Materiel Standardization and Interoperability with Allies and Coalition Partners. For programs delivering capabilities with potential use in allied and coalition operations, the identification and assessment should include the ISAs applicable to areas such as cross-servicing (with interchangeable fuels,

129 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST lubricants, gases, and munitions), armaments, air transport and air drop, medical evacuation, combat search and rescue, crash/fire/rescue, and geospatial/intelligence Following approval of the acquisition strategy, the PM should notify AF/A5 and SAF/AQR of all applicable ISAs that are not included in the Systems Requirement Document (SRD) to allow agreement reservations to be registered with the appropriate multinational body (see AFI , The United States Air Force International Military Standardization Program, for further information). Section 3D Sustainment Planning Requirements Product Support/Sustainment Planning Overview. Product support is a continuous and collaborative set of activities that establishes and maintains readiness and the operational capability of a system, subsystem, or end-item throughout its life cycle. It is an overarching activity that bridges the acquisition and sustainment phases of a program. A product support strategy shall be built around the product support elements to integrate the acquisition and sustainment phases of a system throughout its life cycle The PM shall ensure the appropriate concepts, techniques, and analyses necessary to assure achievement of predefined supportability and support requirements and objectives are applied. The PM shall ensure that integrated logistics support objectives are considered and introduced as early as practical with a far-reaching life cycle view concerning logistics design and supportability of the system. This activity requires integration of current logistics concepts into preliminary planning to evaluate the various options for maintenance concepts and supply support from the standpoint of life cycle cost and parameters to ensure balanced life cycle strategy The PM shall consider life cycle sustainment during the Materiel Solution Analysis phase and mature sustainment planning in the Technology Development phase. The PM shall ensure the requirement for a Life Cycle Sustainment Plan is included as an integral part of the LCMP prepared for MS B (program initiation) using the following top-level Product Support Elements: 1) sustaining/system engineering, 2) design interface, 3) supply support, 4) maintenance planning and management, 5) support equipment/automatic test systems (SE/ATS), 6) facilities, 7) packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (PHS&T), 8) technical data management/technical orders, 9) manpower and personnel, 10) training, 11) computer resources, and 12) protection of critical program information and anti-tamper provisions. Additional information on the Product Support Elements is in AFPAM To ensure compliance with Title 10, USC, Sections 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities, and 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot-Level maintenance of Materiel, the PM shall reflect the Air Force enterprise Core and 50/50 requirements in programmatic strategy and detailed product sourcing documents throughout the program life cycle Prior to MS-B the PM shall have an initial plan for depot activation requirements and funding, to include operational rationale, which shall be finalized prior to IOC. Data shall be kept current until all depot activation requirements are achieved The PM shall collaborate with and provide program depot activation data to AFMC for inclusion in a centralized depot activation depository.

130 130 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM shall ensure product support integration throughout the system life cycle. Product support integration consists of integrating the activities of the product support providers as well as intra-system and inter-system integration with supporting systems, subsystems, end-items, components and facilities A performance based strategy shall be used to link product support to weapon system performance. A performance based logistics (PBL) strategy shall be used in accordance with the PBL guidance section in this AFI Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+), as an extension of the maintenance design program executed during development, shall be used to improve maintenance agility and responsiveness, increase operational availability, and reduce life cycle total ownership costs. The goal is to perform maintenance only upon evidence of need by employment of technologies, processes, and procedures to improve maintenance/logistics. Enabling technologies and concepts include prognostics, diagnostics, portable maintenance aids, interactive electronic technical manuals, interactive training, data analysis, integrated information systems, automatic identification, reliability-centered maintenance, and joint total asset visibility. See DODI , Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) for Materiel Maintenance, for more details The PM shall work with the PSM to ensure product support strategies are implemented throughout the system life cycle PM. The PM is responsible to ensure PSM activities are adequately resourced within the Program Office and all functional activities within the Program Office provide adequate support to PSM activities. The product support strategy shall consist of 1) all product support planning which begins prior to Milestone A and continues through disposal and 2) execution of the product support functions required to field and maintain the readiness and operational capability of the program. The PM and PSM will use the Acquisition Sustainment (AS) Tool Kit as an aid to facilitate product support/sustainment planning and management throughout the life cycle of the program. Reference AFPAM for more information on the AS Tool Kit PSM. The PSM is the single point of contact for overall product support throughout the system life cycle. They report directly to the PM and are accountable for all product support matters regarding program cost, schedule, performance and supportability. The PSM will seek assistance from AFMC/A4 or AFSPC/A4 regarding all program product support matters and specifically on impacts to the overall implementing commands logistics, installation, and mission support responsibilities. The PSM is responsible to develop and implement a comprehensive, outcome-based, product support strategy that addresses the total life cycle support for the system. The PSM will work with other Functional Leads within the program office to ensure the product support strategy is reflected in all appropriate programmatic documentation and document and maintain currency of the product support strategy in the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) in accordance with DoDI Other PSM responsibilities include: Adjust performance requirements and resource allocations for Product Support Integrators (PSIs) and Product Support Providers (PSPs) no less than annually to implement the product support strategy.

131 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Ensure the program addresses product support interrelationship and integration with other programs in their respective portfolio and joint infrastructure Conduct initial and revalidate subsequent business case analyses (BCA) performed in support of the product support strategy every five years or prior to each change in the product support strategy, whichever occurs first. Include any new or updated alternatives, costs, and schedule impacts relative to the most recent or changed product support strategy Conduct periodic reviews no less than every five years to assess and revalidate the product support strategy and adjust allocations and performance requirements to validated warfighter needs Ensure processes and procedures are in place within the Program Office for accurate collection and reporting of 50/50 and Core data and provide data IAW data calls Analyze maintenance data, mishap data, and Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) compliance to evaluate operation and maintenance performance and compliance in support of achieving overall product support performance Develop performance-based agreements with warfighter customer(s), PSIs and PSPs to meet the overall performance requirements and support validated warfighter needs Depot Source of Repair (DSOR). The DSOR process is the method by which the DOD postures its depot level maintenance workloads organic or contract. It applies to workloads for hardware, software, new acquisitions and fielded systems, whether the Government or private contractor manages the system or subsystem. Source of repair (SOR) processes are also utilized to reassess prior DSOR decisions when major changes occur that could potentially affect previous DSOR decisions (e.g., changes in the length of a program s life cycle; capability and sustainment modifications; increases greater than 20% in labor-hours, cost or quantities of fielded systems). For fielded systems, the process will be initiated as soon as the change in posture is considered. DSOR planning shall be initiated early in the life cycle DSOR determinations for specific programs, systems, sub-systems, and end items are processed and approved through AFMC The overall DSOR decision for a program is a compilation of the results of the individual DSOR determinations that are based on the combined Source of Repair Assignment Process (SORAP) and the depot maintenance interservice (DMI) recommendations. The overall DSOR decision shall be approved by the MDA at MS-B (program initiation) and MS-C. MDA approval is normally accomplished by including the DSOR decision in the LCMP The PM, PGM and Air Logistics Center (ALC) Commander shall ensure appropriate subject matter experts and stakeholders are involved in developing the DSOR decision package, validating and implementing DSOR decisions. DSOR packages shall be submitted with lead time sufficient to include the outcome of the determination in any acquisition strategy development supporting a program initiation approval MS B and/or the award of any

132 132 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 contracts for subsequent acquisition and sustainment phases. If a DSOR is required in less than 90 days from the date the initiating official submits the request to HQ AFMC, the request will include the rationale for the need and the required date. The following are responsible for the DSOR decision package submittal: The PM for weapon-system specific acquisitions The PGM for product group acquisitions The managing ALC Commander for common commodities not managed by a PM or PGM DSOR packages shall be processed through use of the DSOR Electronic Manager (DSOR-EM). HQ AFMC shall manage the DSOR-EM and processes/procedures consistent with DOD/AF DSOR guidance. Initiators of DSOR packages shall adhere to the HQ AFMC established DSOR processes and procedures HQ AFMC is designated the AF executive manager for DSOR and will: Develop and/or provide DSOR-EM user guidance, access management, training, user functional support, operation, and sustainment of the DSOR-EM Develop and/or coordinate on forms required for DSOR processes Develop DSOR processes/procedures for processing DSOR packages through SORAP, DMI, and if applicable the strategic source of repair (SSOR) activities (SSOR determination is addressed later in this section). DSOR processes/procedures shall be integrated within the DSOR-EM to the maximum extent practical Manage the process for all initiated DSOR decision packages through all actions (SORAP, DMI, and, as needed, SSOR determination) Maintain up-to-date status on DSOR packages Ensure DSOR-EM entry for completion (approval) of a SORAP, DMI, SSOR (if applicable), and DSOR decision is restricted to appropriate management personnel and the entry is linked to a digital signature for accountability Coordinate with HQ AFSPC on all space DSOR packages Be the AF interface with the Joint Depot Maintenance Activities Group (JDMAG) Develop and publish needed documentation, agreements, processes, and guidance as needed for effective operations between HQ AFMC and the JDMAG, consistent with DOD and AF policy and guidance Accomplish an SSOR determination if required, utilizing the information from the pending DSOR package The DSOR process considers a broad range of factors but at a minimum shall consider: public law (e.g. Title 10 USC 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities and 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot-level Maintenance of Materiel); long-term depot strategy; overall cost to the DOD; mission assignment alignment, environmental

133 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST impacts (to comply with AFI , The Environmental Impact Analysis Process, and Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations Part 989), and specific weapon system requirements. DSOR packages shall be prepared at the highest level practicable e.g., system or subsystem and be a collaborative process that includes Government stakeholders participation in determining the most beneficial SOR. The SORAP portion of the DSOR should be viewed as a decision point based on multiple factors rather than a competition between an organic depot and a contractor source Joint acquisition programs require the DSOR to be executed for new items entering the AF inventory, regardless of decision rendered or degrees of commonality of the items being acquired by other DOD components. This does not preclude the use of data available from the other DOD components in the preparation of an AF DSOR recommendation. When the AF is the lead DOD Component, the other DOD Components core needs are to be considered prior to any AF DSOR decisions The DSOR initiator (SPM/PM, PGM or ALC OPR) is responsible to complete, validate, and implement the total DSOR package. The initiator of the DSOR shall also ensure all viable sustainment options are considered before deciding on a SOR recommendation for the DSOR package. The DSOR initiator is responsible for submitting the DSOR package in time to support milestone decisions, RFP releases, and other programmatic needs. RFPs shall include requirements for technical data which are necessary to set up AF determined needed organic repair capabilities The DSOR initiator shall review DSOR decisions: Every three years to document continued validity of the DSOR in the DSOR-EM As requested by HQ AFMC when depot activation plans are accomplished or new depot capability is activated There are five situations when a DSOR is required: New acquisitions. A new acquisition includes any weapon system, item, component, system, subsystem, or software that will result in a new requirement for depot-level maintenance. DSORs for new acquisitions shall be accomplished on the total anticipated inventory to be acquired For new acquisitions, the DSOR requirements shall be initiated during the Technology Development Phase in sufficient time to obtain a DSOR decision or an SSOR determination prior to program initiation. If only an SSOR determination is accomplished at program initiation, the DSOR requirements must be accomplished prior to the Production and Deployment life cycle phase. The PM initiates the DSOR by identifying the requirement. While there may not be firm programmatic data available in the pre-acquisition inception phase, the identification may use information based on a system or systems that are currently satisfying the same or similar requirement. In the absence of a comparable source of data, conceptual data may be used. The submission must be of sufficient depth to allow for identification of candidate organic depots and completion of a core

134 134 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 capability assessment The PM will consider core and partnered workloads in their development of DSOR packages and resolve any inconsistencies with the candidate depots The PM is responsible for review of the results of the solicitation and sorting workloads into two categories: (1) core and partnered workload decisions that were made but need to be reviewed, relative to the equipment and software selected. The earlier decision will either be validated or the workload will be placed in the contract repair candidate category. (2) Workloads, which also include the contract candidates, will be postured using a cost-based approach. These workloads may be deferred until more mature data is available New work. New work, as related to requiring a DSOR, is a change (hardware or software) to a previously postured system, end-item, or component that will result in a change greater than 20% to the depot maintenance workload hours or cost Modification follow-on workloads. Modification follow-on workloads are depot maintenance workloads generated as a result of a modification installation. When a modification installation introduces one or more new acquisition, as defined above, it generates a need for the DSOR to determine the destination of the workload. DSOR packages for modification follow-on workloads are prepared and must meet the same requirements as for a new acquisition Overseas Workload Program (OWLP). DSORs are required for any new, modified, or shift in a SOR that involves the potential for accomplishment of depotlevel maintenance by a source outside of the United States. Information required to make an informed DSOR decision is generally available. DSOR packages will be prepared and submitted in the same manner as for new start packages. This is applicable even in those instances where the results of the assessments appear to be obvious Workload Shifts. Permanent change in the officially designated SOR or source of modification can only be accomplished through a DSOR process when such change involves an organic depot. Changes from one contract repair source to another or consolidating several contract workloads does not require a DSOR. A DSOR is required for a workload shift when there is a proposed change in the SOR that results in one of the following types of SOR shifts: from assigned organic depot to another organic depot; from assigned organic depot to a contract; or from contract SOR to an organic depot. DSOR package actions for workload shifts are the same as for OWLP There is no waiver to the DSOR for depot-level maintenance workloads meeting the criteria above, although certain categories of workloads may be excluded from DSOR requirements. Categories of workloads meeting the exclusion criteria include: DELETED.

135 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Workloads generated by Industrial Plant Equipment located exclusively within the depot maintenance complex and funded through the industrial fund Modifications that are to be performed in conjunction with scheduled depot maintenance at the assigned SOR Modifications to components that do not change the form, fit, or function of the component modified and do not change the basic part number, only the version (dash number change), as long as the SOR of the end-item does not change Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) workloads which are Major Force Program (MFP)-11 funded Systems and equipment under special access programs Automated data processing equipment workloads that are not for national security systems (including payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management applications) Department of Energy special design military spares. (Examples include but are not limited to nuclear weapon trainers, nuclear weapons test or handling equipment, and use control equipment.) While cost is a consideration in any posturing decision, a formal costing effort may not always be necessary, e.g., a review of the potential cost drivers is sufficient to allow for a SOR recommendation when considered with other, more salient criteria. In those instances where a costing effort is required, the PM (who may utilize DSOR team) will determine the scope and methodology. The primary consideration is the cost to the Government and not to individual acquisition programs. Costs incurred by an individual acquisition program composed of elements that would accrue costs to the Air Force regardless of the posturing decision are not relevant to the posturing decision. However the costs associated with the shift in workload shall be identified as quickly as possible so that these activities may be programmed and budgeted Upon approval of the SORAP recommendation, HQ AFMC will introduce the DSOR package for DMI study/review. This DMI study/review is required regardless of the SORAP decision, organic or contract When a DSOR decision cannot be accomplished for program initiation approval (MS B), HQ AFMC will accomplish an SSOR determination. The SSOR determination, defined as a determination of the anticipated SOR (organic or commercial and probable organic depot(s) considering all Services) is based on the best available information during the Technology Development Phase (non-space programs) or Concept Development Phase (space programs) or during the first applicable acquisition phase The SSOR determination is to identify anticipated SORs early in the acquisition process so that defense acquisition planning and programming documents, and resulting contracts, contain the appropriate sustainment elements needed to support the acquisition strategy. The determination will also support Title 10 USC 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities (Core) and 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depotlevel Maintenance of Materiel (50/50) requirements, mission assignment alignment, and guide

136 136 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 the DSOR initiator in accomplishing timely and efficient product support activities needed for operational capability. The documentation submitted for a DSOR, for both SORAP and DMI decisions, is used for making a SSOR determination with the understanding that the level of information is not sufficient to make a full DSOR decision The AFMC/CC shall be the SSOR determination approval authority For ACAT I, IA and II programs, the approval for the SSOR determination may not be delegated For ACAT III programs, the approval for the SSOR determination may be delegated by the AFMC/CC HQ AFMC shall determine the need for an SSOR determination within 90 days from the date that the initiating official submits the DSOR package. If an SSOR determination is required, HQ AFMC shall provide the documented approved SSOR determination to the DSOR package initiator at least 45 days prior to the projected or scheduled date for the MS B, or program inception decision The SSOR determination documentation shall include at a minimum: Identification of AF and/or other Services candidate depot(s) which possess the needed organic technical repair capability A brief summary of the required Core capabilities, identification of Core capability gaps, organic workload needed, and why these organic workloads are necessary to alleviate the applicable identified Core gaps Identification, from a strategic perspective, of workload projections (for hardware and software) required for 50/50 compliance and direction to the PM/PGM to plan for organic depot maintenance to satisfy the projections A specific statement that stresses to the PM the requirement that the RFP include appropriate technical data rights clauses and necessary deliverables, or options for technical data and equipment deliverables required to support an organic SOR determination Data Rights. Ensuring access to technical data (recorded information used to define a design and to produce, support, maintain, or operate a system) is critical to life cycle sustainment of a system. The PM will ensure decisions made early in the acquisition process address data needs over the entire life cycle of the system The PM shall assess long term data rights requirements and corresponding acquisition strategies prior to initiating a request for proposal to acquire systems, subsystems, or end-items to ensure they provide for rights, access, or delivery of technical data that the Government requires for systems total life cycle sustainment. The PM shall address the acquisition of technical data and associated rights at ASPs, reviews, and document the strategy in the LCMP and associated data planning documents for all ACAT programs. Source selections shall consider Government rights to technical data. Data rights assessments and requirements shall:

137 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Consider the product support life cycle strategy, which support plans for such areas as materiel management, training, cataloging, CM, engineering, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/Material Shortages (DMSMS), technology refreshment, maintenance/repair within the technical order (TO) limits and specifically engineered outside of TO limits, and reliability management Collaborate and/or support other associated activities/elements such as: source of repair and supply decisions, core capability requirements, limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance, and preservation of competition The PM shall ensure the performance work statement/statement of work (PWS/SOW) for development, production, deployment, and sustainment (for all applicable acquisition and sustainment phases) includes appropriate technical data rights requirements and necessary deliverables, or options for technical data and equipment deliverables required to support: Organic source of repair and/or supply decisions Government Core depot maintenance capability requirements Expeditionary logistics footprint requirements Engineering data requirements needed for such activities as OSS&E assurance, integrity programs, sustaining engineering, and configuration management Technical orders (TOs) Reprocurement/modification/upgrade For specific guidance and regulations concerning minimum government specific license rights, technical data and computer software, follow the regulations and guidance found in DFARS , and (Reference Title 10 USC 2302, 2305, 2320, 2321 and 2325.) The burden of proof that data is proprietary lies with the contractor Engineering Data The PM shall ensure development and acquisition of engineering data sufficient for the acquisition, modification, maintenance, spares, repair, and demilitarization of the weapon system The PM shall require the use of International Standards Organization (ISO) 10303, Standard for Exchange of Product (STEP) Model Data, AP239, Product Life Cycle Support, for engineering data Legacy system modifications shall implement ISO for new engineering data to the maximum extent feasible. Conversion to ISO for the entire legacy system is encouraged when supported by a positive business case analysis (BCA) The PM shall ensure acquired engineering data is compatible with the Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS) to the maximum extent feasible When acquiring Computer Aided Design (CAD) data, the PM shall require delivery in both native format and neutral format.

138 138 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM shall ensure the SEP includes detailed planning for management of government and contractor technical data throughout the product/system life cycle Obtain data that fully supports the product data repository (currently the Product Lifecycle Management System (PLMS) operating on the Global Combat Support System-Air Force (GCSS-AF)). PLMS is open AF wide for use to capture and manage product data throughout the life cycle The PLMS is being transitioned to the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) and additional data needed for ECSS shall be coordinated with the PM. PMs shall support additional ECSS requirements as approved and funded by the appropriate programmatic authority Evaluate existing and commercial data for adequacy in supporting program requirements in conjunction with estimated costs of upgrading or supplementing that data when necessary to establish or sustain stated support requirements. This includes modeling and simulation data Assess claimed restrictions on the use of engineering data and the cost effectiveness of securing or obtaining unlimited rights or Government Purpose License Rights (GPLR) for limited rights data Incorporate government and contractor-release validation controls when a contractor is required to develop and deliver government drawings Perform in-process reviews of engineering data to assess contractor efforts to develop quality data that conforms to requirements The PM shall coordinate with the primary Engineering Data Support Center (EDSC) (see Attachment 4 of this document) to: Accomplish final drawing reviews to determine whether legibility, format, and completeness conform to contract requirements Utilize top-down breakdown assessments, using the guidelines in MIL-HDBK- 288, Review and Acceptance of Engineering Drawing Packages Resolve missing and inadequate data issues Deliver engineering data only to the Primary EDSC for completion of DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report or submission through the Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) process ( Delivery includes a Letter of Technical Acceptance by the PM, or other designated authority Electronic and non-electronic procedures for requesting engineering data from a Primary EDSC are provided in Attachment 4 of this publication The PM will make maximum use of the Military Engineering Data Asset Locator System (MEDALS), to determine if usable data can be located within the DOD. Additional sources to aid in data searches include: D043, Logistics Remote User's Network; D086, Logistics Maintenance Engineering Management Assignments; Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS); Defense Logistics Information Service Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code (

139 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST The PM may obtain data from an alternate source when engineering data is not available from a primary EDSC. The PM shall ensure the data reflects the correct configuration and is so maintained until delivered to the primary EDSC The PM shall utilize engineering change orders to alter, change, revise, etc., an item of engineering data Technical Orders (TO). Air Force technical orders (TO) provide clear and concise instructions for safe and reliable operation, inspection and maintenance of centrally acquired and managed AF systems and commodities. The PM shall field up-to-date, technically accurate and user-friendly TOs. The terms Technical Manual (TM) and manual are used interchangeably with the terms Technical Order and TO Air Force TOs are published under the authority of the SECAF. Compliance with TOs is mandatory, except as explained in TO , AF Technical Order System. Military personnel who do not comply, including members of the Air Force Reserve Command on active duty and Air National Guard in Federal status, face punishment under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice AFMC is designated the executive agent for the AF TO System. To ensure the integration of the various system activities, AFMC shall assign an AF TO System Director who shall: Represent the AF for TO technical and management issues with DOD, other Government agencies, industry, and other AF activities Develop processes and procedures for implementation, management and execution of the AF Technical Order System Develop requirements for the operation, modernization, and maintenance of the AF Standard TO Management System, and integration of the system with other AF management systems The PM shall provide verified TOs for fielded AF systems (hardware or software) that are operated and maintained by military or government civilian personnel, unless exceptions are listed in TO In the absence of verified TOs for fielded AF systems that are operated and maintained by military or government civilian personnel, the PM shall provide interim contract support until the required TOs are delivered TOs contain instructions for the installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, training, and support of weapon systems, to include components, mission and support equipment TOs must address equipment and special tools substitutions. Substitutions of equipment and tools used with nuclear weapons shall not be made without the approval of the AF Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) TO procedures to be used with nuclear weapons shall be nuclear safety certified in accordance with AFI , Air Force Nuclear Safety Design Certification Program, and AFI , Nuclear Certification Program.

140 140 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST TOs may contain classified information only up to and including Secret- Restricted Data, IAW AFI , Information Security Program Management Unclassified TOs shall be marked, controlled and distributed in accordance with AFI , Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Information Flight manuals are a type of TO and direction for managing and using flight manuals is in AFI , USAF Flight Manuals Program (FMP) Air Force 00-series TOs are either TO management or procedure-oriented and contain unique functions such as acquisition, numbering, change, inter-servicing, and security assistance The Joint Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support (JCALS), and Enhanced Technical Information Management System (ETIMS) shall be used in accordance with TO and TO , AF Technical Order Life Cycle Management, unless waived by AF/A4/ TOs for specific military systems and commodities shall take precedence over general TOs. (Reference TO ) New techniques or concepts relating to the TO system shall be proposed and justified through AFMC/A4 to AF/A4/7 for approval AFMC, as the AF executive agent for TOs, shall advise AF/A4/7 on TO issues, including waiver requests, through a Centralized Technical Order Management (CTOM) Committee MAJCOMs shall support the CTOM as requested by AFMC TOs shall be distributed at the direction of the applicable TO Manager listed in the Air Force TO Catalog. Provide TOs in the formats (digital or paper) required by authorized users. Updates to TOs shall be produced in the same distribution format as the basic TO Review available manuals from other DOD components to determine adequacy and application to particular programs. Joint-use technical manuals shall be integrated into the TO system, assigned TO numbers, indexed, distributed, stored, reprinted and rescinded in the same manner as any other Air Force TO (Reference AFJI , Interservicing of Technical Manuals and Related Technology) Pre-production or non-configured items in the AF inventory shall be operated and maintained according to the latest verified technical data that is compatible with the specific configuration of the equipment Technical data extracted from a parent TO shall not change the context of the TO and must include applicable warnings, cautions, notes, tables, and figures. Extracts shall include the parent TO title page and shall be controlled IAW all TO title page notices and statements The PM shall provide copies of all TOs and updates to the Air Force Archives at Tinker AFB, OK. A compatible viewing application shall also be provided when archiving digital TOs (electronic TMs [ETM] and/or interactive electronic TMs [IETM]) managed by the PM when not already available for use at the Archive.

141 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Rescinded, superseded, or re-numbered TOs shall be retained within the Air Force TO Archive (Repository) for at least six years after the equipment supported has left the inventory General and Methods and Procedures TOs (MPTOs) available on the Internet shall only be reproduced and distributed locally in paper if the TO cannot be used digitally at the point of maintenance (POMx) Issue documentation, in coordination with the Chief Engineer and using Command, that provides data beyond the scope of authorized TOs or provides authorization to deviate from published TO parameters (TO , Maintenance Assistance, and TO , Communication-Electronic [C-E] Depot Support) Develop all TOs IAW approved Government Technical Manual Specifications and Standards (TMSS) listed in the Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) document, TM The TMSS Preparing Authority (PA) is the AF approval authority for deviation from the use of military TMSS The PM must coordinate use of non-government (commercial) standards (NGS) instead of military approved TMSS for TO development with the TMSS PA and the Lead Command Recommended changes to existing TMSS documents shall be submitted to the PA IAW DOD M TOs shall be acquired IAW the guidance in DOD M, Procedures for the Acquisition and Management of Technical Data; and TO TOs for new systems and equipment shall be acquired and received in digital formats IAW Air Force TMSS TO The preferred TO format is a Type II (non page based) IETM database, which may include, but is not limited to, hard copy, audio and visual displays and discs Existing COTS operating instructions, part breakdown handbooks, and repair manuals shall be acquired instead of developing new TOs if no degradation in OSS&E will result. COTS manuals shall be assigned unique TO numbers and managed within the Standard TO Management System unless covered by the exclusions identified in TO COTS manuals shall be reviewed and approved IAW MIL- PRF-32216, Evaluation of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Manuals and Preparation of Supplemental Data, TO and TO The PM shall request at a minimum Government Purpose Rights for COTS manuals; unlimited rights are preferred The PM shall ensure TOs and Preliminary TOs (PTO) are verified in accordance with TO Formatted PTOs shall be verified during Air Force DT&E, Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) verification and trial equipment installations to the maximum extent possible. Formal TOs or verified PTOs shall be used during OT&E. If DT&E and

142 142 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 OT&E have been combined, PTO verification may be accomplished during OT&E with Lead Command concurrence and approval of the PM PTOs may be used for initial development of training plans and course syllabuses Verification status pages (VSP) shall be included in all TOs and PTOs that contain unverified procedures (MIL-STD-38784, Standard Practice for Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements). Digital TOs shall also include a VSP or verification status screen. Non-procedural TOs (MPTOs, Illustrated Parts Breakdowns, Work Unit Code manuals, etc.) do not require VSPs Using organizations may use preliminary data for hands-on training, operations, or maintenance when verified and authorized by the PM or representative along with concurrence from the Lead Command. Authorization for the use of preliminary data shall not exceed 180 days unless readdressed. The authorization memorandum must accompany the data at all times The PM shall require that contracts for the development and delivery of Air Force TOs task the contractor to certify preliminary TOs (PTO) IAW TO All procedural tasks contained in TOs, TO updates and Air Force supplements to commercial manuals shall be 100 percent verified using Lead Command Government technicians of the same skill level expected to use the procedures in the field IAW TO Verification shall be performed, using one of the accepted methods specified in TO , on production-configured assets in the operational environment. Exceptions for the use of substitute non-production items may be approved IAW TO Unverified flight manual data shall not be placed on an aircraft for operational use Non-procedural data are verified IAW TO using Desk Top Analysis TCTOs shall be verified IAW TO , Air Force Time Compliance Technical Order Process Technical data used for interim contract support (ICS) need not be verified. Verification of technical data for Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) shall be determined by the PM based on the life cycle sustainment plan A MAJCOM that requires use of an unverified TO procedure may, with concurrence of the PM, accomplish verification IAW TO , Using Command Verification Process The PM shall issue TCTOs to control and manage the modification of production systems and equipment IAW TO The PM may issue waivers to TCTO compliance on aircraft, missiles, and equipment undergoing test and evaluation if the TCTO affects the system and subsystem being evaluated AFMC shall develop a Comprehensive Air Force Technical Order Plan (CAFTOP) that identifies mutual agreements between PMs and MAJCOMs relative to management and

143 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST funding of a specific list of TOs. The PM and MAJCOMs shall support the CAFTOP process as required Responsibilities related to Air Force TO development and management: The DCS, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (AF/A4/7): Has approval authority for 00-series TOs; this may be delegated Issue AF guidance for TO development and management Ensure the AF Standard TO Management System is interoperable with other DOD/AF automated information systems Be the approval authority for adoption of new concepts and technologies for use with TOs and the AF Standard TO Management System AFMC/CC: Operates and maintains a standard AF TO Management System that automates TO management and use procedures. The TO system should provide realtime availability of current TOs electronically through a single point of access, viewable at the point of use using electronic tools Plans, programs and budgets for the AF Standard TO Management System, interfacing/legacy subsystems, and sustainment of TOs Establishes and manages the AF CTOM Committee Develops, in coordination with MAJCOMs, and publishes AF Standard TO Management System practices, processes and procedures Manages the AF-assigned segment of the DOD TMSS program Assists PMs with pre-contract planning to determine appropriate digital formats for TOs when requested Represents the AF for development of procedures for interservice and joint use of technical data and TMs between military departments PM : Coordinates TO activities with the AF TO System Director Provides TO management for the life cycle of assigned system/commodity TOs. Manages TO changes IAW TOs and , within the timelines specified in the TOs and AFI Provides inputs to the CAFTOP for assigned system/commodity Ensures IETMs are developed in an Air Force standard, interoperable format, compatible with the TO Management System Ensures TO index, configuration, distribution, warehouse inventory information and content data, etc. for assigned system/commodity are maintained current in the Air Force Standard TO Management System.

144 144 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA/A4M will serve as the OPR for Technical Orders (TOs) management and use Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T). The PM shall address the resources, processes, procedures, design considerations, classifications and methods to ensure that assets are packaged/preserved, handled, stored, and transported properly. The related analysis includes determination of environmental considerations, classification of material, preservation requirement for short- and long-term storage, transportability requirements, and other methods to protect and ensure elimination/minimization of damage to the defense system and its necessary support infrastructure. For more detailed direction refer to AFPD 24-2, Preparation and Movement of Air Force Materiel; AFI , Preparation and Movement of Air Force Cargo; AFI(I) , Packaging of Hazardous Material; and AFJMAN , Joint Service Manual for Storage and Materials Handling Contractor Logistics Support. The PM will consider Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) applications as part of the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan included in the LCMP. CLS applications include pre-operational support (POS), interim contract support (ICS), contract sustainment support (CSS), and total contract training (TCT) POS may be used to support test and evaluation efforts; system risk reduction and demonstration; production readiness, or other temporary periods during the acquisition or modification of a system, equipment or end-item ICS is a temporary support method for an initial period of the operation of the system, equipment or end-item. This strategy is utilized for controlling capital investment costs while design stability is being achieved and complex logistics support elements are being developed If ICS is planned, the PM shall include in the LCMP a plan for transition of ICS to organic or contract or a combination of contract and organic sustainment and identify the beginning and ending dates of the ICS. ICS does not negate the PM s responsibility to achieve an organic and/or a CSS capability as early as practicable or the requirement for testing and/or demonstrating the adequacy of a system, equipment, or end-item Contractor Supported Weapon System (CSWS) is a supply support approach applied during ICS for integrating contractor inventory control points into the AF s supply support structure with the overall goal of achieving combat readiness. Under CSWS, a contractor is the Inventory Control Point and Source of Supply of peculiar spare parts that apply to an entire system during interim supply support. At the end of the Interim Supply Support Period, the concept is to transition support spares directly into replenishment spares. More information can be found on the CSWS Community of Practice website CSS can be used for materiel management, configuration management, data management, supply, distribution, repair, calibration, depot maintenance, operating command organizational maintenance (and other levels as negotiated), and many other operations and maintenance tasks normally performed by an organic support activity for all or part of the logistics support required by a system, sub-system, equipment, or end-item. Applications include the support of government-owned systems, sub-systems, equipment, end-items,

145 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST research and development (R&D) prototypes converted to operational use, and other instances where organic life cycle logistics support is not planned. Support decisions shall be based on analyses (such as a Business Case Analyses (BCA)) and the ability to meet users capabilities requirements and must be in the over-all best interest of the AF TCT, as applied in this AFI, is to provide a contractor-operated performance based training system. TCT may be utilized when the lead command, after coordination with the PM and validation by the using commands, specifies the desired level of training, objectives, and learning outcomes (to include metrics for assessing the accomplishment of objectives and outcomes). The PM shall ensure the supported system s TCT is defined and that its devices and logistics support elements will provide students with the appropriate training to meet the users defined objectives The PM, with collaboration from the lead command, shall accomplish the analysis for determining the use of TCT or organic support. This analysis shall be coordinated with and provided to the appropriate functional office for systems training at HQ AETC and HQ AFMC. The lead command, in collaboration with using commands, shall document in the operational requirements the numbers of persons or crews to train and the required skill level or qualifications of the students at training completion. The acquiring organization shall implement the lead command s documented defined level of training and the desired learning outcome(s) Other than Government Furnished Property (GFP) and/or Government Furnished Information (GFI), the PM shall ensure provisions are made for the TCT contractor to provide the management, instructors, curriculum, courseware, facilities, trainers, and logistics support required to meet requirements. For GFP/GFE/GFI provided through the TCT contract, the PM shall ensure provisions are made to maintain and make Government approved changes (e.g., engineering and software updates) to GFP and for control of intelligence GFI IAW AFI , Release of Intelligence to US Contractors CLS and other Support requirements shall be programmed for and executed using the types of funds and funding level approved by the lead/using commands and/or AF Centralized Asset Management (CAM) Executive Agent (AFMC). The PM shall provide lead/using commands and/or AF CAM Executive Agent applicable copies of obligation documents and expense reports as agreed to and/or as stipulated by the AF CAM Executive Agent. Reference AFI , Vol 1 for more information The lead command and using commands will plan and advocate for programming and budgeting for their portion of the CLS costs and any associated CLS requirements for the sustainment of weapon systems When the funding is for the direct mission support of a program using multiple sustainment elements, the source of funds is operation and maintenance (O&M) appropriations using the Air Force Element of Expense (AFEE) 578, CLS. Note, AFEE 578 CLS funds can only be used for applications as identified in AFI , Vol 1, not all CLS applications When support is for a single sustainment element, the source of funds is the one for the specific element, such as AFEE 583 for sustaining engineering by contract, AFEE

146 146 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST for contract technical data, AFEE 560 or 54x (depending on the commodity) for depot maintenance provided through the Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance (DPEM) program CLS O&M requirements shall be programmed through the AF CAM Executive Agent or HQ AFSPC/A4/7 for space programs. The AF CAM Executive Agent shall provide CAM implementation/execution processes and procedures guidance. HQ AFSPC/A4/7 will provide tailored CAM implementation/execution guidance for space programs to standardize processes to the greatest extent possible. The PM shall provide actual and projected requirements over a nine-year period (i.e., current year, planning year, plus seven projected years). Projections content shall include the split of contractor and public-private partnership (PPP) workload to support the 50/50 depot maintenance workload reporting requirements CLS contracts will be written based on characteristics for performance based logistics. The PM shall establish flexible performance and funding ranges commensurate with targets developed in conjunction with the lead commands, industry partners, and other relevant agencies across the acquisition, logistics, and user communities. These contracts will link contract incentives to performance outcomes while allowing the Air Force to make sound enterprise-wide, capabilities based resource decisions when deciding where to accept risk. The PM shall balance affordability, flexibility, and required operational capability within the program funds available CLS contracts should be crafted to identify ranges of outcome performance with thresholds and objectives, and the target price (cost to the user) for each level of capability. The contract should also delineate any constraints or boundary conditions and will reflect normal operations. The execution performance level will be dictated by the allocation of funds to a weapons system during the execution year. It must include specific terms and conditions related to surge and warfighting operations that will be considered over-and-above activity Generally, a focus on a few performance based outcome metrics such as weapons system availability, mission reliability, logistics footprint, and/or overall system readiness levels will lead to more effective solutions. However in developing the actual support arrangements, it may not be possible to directly state the warfighter performance objectives as support metrics because of lack of support provider control of all support activities necessary to produce the warfighter performance (e.g., availability) The PM, in collaboration with stakeholders, shall identify the needed CLS requirements and make provisions in the RFP, SOW, and contracts to ensure visibility of direct contractor costs for each type of support material and service that is being provided The PM will ensure contract data requirements for tracking and reporting of contractor/organic (50/50) costs are established The PM shall report all contract support costs in accordance with AFI , Vol CLS activities shall be consistent with AF format standards and be compatible with AF management and data collection systems to the maximum extent feasible.

147 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST CLS contracts should be flexible enough to address a range of support requirements, so as to accommodate changes in operational tempo (OPTEMPO) or execution year funding, including surge or contingency requirements to the extent that they can be defined. Agreements should clearly articulate cost versus price considerations, attendant risks associated with requirements definition, performance failure, etc., and should capture alternatives The PM shall obtain the Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) PGM approval prior to contracting for commercial calibration services or when deviating from currently established calibration support plans IAW AFI , Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) Program When making logistics sustainability decisions, the PM shall consider the impact of geographic Combatant Commander specific contractor policies and requirements in existing Operation Plans/Operation Orders (OPLAN/OPORD) (including as a minimum: restrictions imposed by applicable international and host nation support agreements; contractor-related deployment, theater reception and accountability reporting; operational security plans and restrictions; force protection; personnel recovery; medical support; and redeployment) upon any proposed CLS arrangement. Reference DODI , Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany US Armed Forces for additional information The PM shall apply quality assurance to CLS material and services. For additional guidance, refer to AFI , Air Force Acquisition Quality Program The lead command and using commands will plan, program and budget for their portion of the CLS costs and any associated CLS requirements for the sustainment of weapon systems The PM shall coordinate and obtain MAJCOM agreement on unit, base, or MAJCOM support requirements and ensure the agreed-to support requirements are included in the CLS contract. If the contractor is operating a support site at a base (installation) location, the PM shall ensure the contract identifies the support elements associated with the site for which the AF is responsible (e.g., facility maintenance, data, utility, security). If the base (installation) maintains the GFP, clearly identify the procedures to the contractor to obtain maintenance and GFI necessary for proper equipment operation. The PM shall identify ESOH practices that must be complied with that are specific to the AF installation. The PM shall identify the GFP to be maintained by the contractor and require the maintenance be completed in accordance with appropriate technical orders and the GFP to be returned in serviceable condition unless otherwise contractually specified CLS for commercial derivative/hybrid aircraft shall adhere to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintenance standards, directives, and bulletins to the maximum extent practical for commercial derivative aircraft, IAW respective manufacturer s maintenance manuals, military technical manuals, approved maintenance concept, and the maintenance contract. For further information, see AFI , Maintaining Commercial Derivative Aircraft; AFPD 62-5, Standards of Airworthiness for Commercial Derivative Hybrid Aircraft; and AFPD 62-4, Standards of Airworthiness for Passenger Carrying Commercial Derivative Transport Aircraft. OSS&E product baseline shall be preserved.

148 148 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Support for Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems (ATCALS) shall adhere to the requirements of AFI , Functional Management of Airfield Operations For training systems that use CLS, the PM is responsible to ensure the CLS maintains the configuration for training devices functionally equivalent to the system, equipment, or program they serve (Added-AFISRA) AFISRA/A4M will serve as the OPR for CLS support Industrial Base Constraints. All programs shall identify and manage industrial base constraints throughout all phases of the life cycle, from requirements definition to disposal. Industrial base constraints include, but are not limited to, critical raw materials, sources of strategic materials, diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS), manufacturing technologies and capabilities, the supply chain, parts obsolescence, depot capacity, and industrial workforce The PM shall address industrial base constraints in the LCMP. This should address mitigation to ensure that the system(s) can be supported during its life cycle. Open systems design, including Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), can help mitigate the risks associated with technology obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing capabilities by avoiding being locked into proprietary technology or by relying on a single source over the life of a system. Incremental development also should be considered to alleviate obsolescence concerns The PM must ensure that PBL product support efforts include an active DMSMS process to anticipate occurrences and take appropriate actions. Actively addressing DMSMS will ensure effective support throughout the system life cycle and prevent adverse impacts on readiness or mission capability. The Services and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) have DMSMS efforts that can assist the PM in addressing DMSMS. For further information See DOD Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Guidebook, and SAF/AQ - Policy Homepage for DOD PBL guide, and DOD R Support Equipment/Automated Test Systems (SE/ATS). Application of standardized Support Equipment/Automatic Test Systems (SE/ATS) is preferred to provide efficiency and reduce cost. The PM shall minimize the proliferation of system-unique equipment at all levels while ensuring the maintenance and deployment requirements of existing and developing systems are met The PM shall acquire SE/ATS which is to the maximum extent possible common and interoperable with other Services and across multiple weapon systems and munitions. Peculiar SE/ATS shall be developed only as a last alternative. Additionally, the PM shall: Select SE/ATS based on cost benefit analysis over the system life cycle; reliability; CBM+ compliance; standardization, and field hardness, size, mobility and environmental needs Request the documentation or obtain validation of the current DOD process guidance from the AFMC SE/ATS PGM. Selection process for all Automated Test Systems (ATS) required for organic support, during any portion of the life cycle of a system, subsystem, or end-item shall follow the DOD ATS Executive Directorate process guidance.

149 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Submit waivers to the SE/ATS PGM and obtain approval prior to acquiring COTS SE/ATS. In the event of waiver disputes, the PEO/DAO and ALC/CC will jointly resolve prior to procurement Endeavor to design systems, subsystems and end-items to minimize new SE/ATS development while still optimizing the life cycle users operational capabilities and product support requirements Utilize support equipment recommendation data (SERD) to the maximum extent possible and coordinate the SERD with the SE/ATS and AFMETCAL PGMs Obtain SE/ATS PGM SERD approval prior to procurement of peculiar SE/ATS. In the event of SERD disputes, the PEO/DAO and ALC/CC will jointly resolve prior to procurement Document requirements for new SE/ATS, replacement SE/ATS, or modifications to existing SE/ATS and coordinate as identified in AFI Reference AFPAM for SE/ATS requirements guidelines HQ AFMC shall designate a PGM for SE/ATS commodities who shall: Develop AF-wide SE/ATS life cycle management processes and codify in official publications Develop and champion AF-wide research and development initiatives/programs for SE/ATS to optimize standardization, capabilities, and technology insertion Serve as the AF designated voting member on the DOD ATS Management Board Maintain and disseminate current DOD ATS Executive Directorate process guidance needed by PMs Develop and document agreements, processes, and guidance as needed for effective interface and operations with the DOD ATS Executive Directorate consistent with DOD/AF policy and guidance Serve as the AF designated voting member on industry standards writing committees Coordinate Joint Service projects that have an AF involvement and represent the AF on the various SE/ATS integrated product teams (IPTs), including Joint Service R&D IPTs Provide assistance to PMs and other PGMs for SE/ATS matters and monitor acquisition and modernization planning for SE/ATS policy and guidance compliance Make SE/ATS acquisition and modernization recommendations to PMs Process required waivers for selection of ATS that is not in the DOD approved family of testers, to include approval from the DOD ATS Management Board Establish SE/ATS commodity families and serve as the approval authority for family designation requests.

150 150 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Develop a strategy for moving legacy capabilities to a Family of Testers. Establish an AF ATS family of testers to include AF legacy ATSs that will remain in the AF inventory and new ATS requirements not currently in the AF inventory Adjudicate requested SE/ATS guidance deviations received from PMs Inform PEOs, or ALC Commanders of cases when PMs are non-compliant with policy/guidance or waiver disputes regarding SE/ATS Weapon System Support Program (WSSP). AF participation in this DLA managed program is key to receiving the appropriate level of support to AF weapon systems from DLA. The AF identifies all weapon systems that use DLA consumables, how important the system is to the AF mission, the National Stock Numbers (NSNs) assigned to each weapon system and how critical each NSN is to a weapon system. DLA uses this information to plan, program, and budget for support to weapon systems. This program applies to all organic and contractor supported weapon systems that utilize DLA supported items, including classified systems. The implementation guidance for this program is contained in AFMAN , Volume 1, Part 1. Each PM with systems that use DLA NSNs shall fulfill the Weapon System Support Program (WSSP) responsibilities. These responsibilities begin prior to the first provisioning conference and end when DLA parts are no longer required to support the weapon system and the weapon system is removed from the WSSP database Air Force Global Logistics Support Center (AFGLSC). RESERVED Depot Maintenance / Sustainment Cost Reporting (50/50). The concept of depot-level maintenance applies to work performed by both government and contractor personnel. It includes all types of contracts (CLS, ICS, requirements contracts) and Partnership arrangements (Workshare Agreements, Direct Sales Agreements, and contract work excluded under the terms of 10 USC 2474), regardless of the source and type of funding and where the work is performed. The organic versus contract sustainment decisions must ensure compliance with public law (e.g. Title 10 USC 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities and 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot-level Maintenance of Materiel) AFMC shall develop, implement, and sustain depot maintenance procedures and processes for compliance with Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and 2466 (50/50) statutory requirements Develop processes and publish procedures to track AF Title 10 USC 2464 (Core) and 2466 (50/50) data and report this data to HQ AF pursuant to data calls from OSD through HQ AF. Computation of core data shall be accomplished IAW DODI , Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process Types of depot maintenance include Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM), Analytical Condition Inspection (ACI), Speedline, major overhaul and repair, repair of reparable, contract/depot field teams, over and above, storage, extended/negotiated warranty costs, software maintenance, and disposal (decommissioning and/or demilitarization). In accordance with OSD 50/50 reporting direction, all maintenance and repair performed in DOD maintenance depots is considered depot-level maintenance. The term in DOD maintenance depots is designated by the AF as workload funded through the working capital fund, and accomplished by employees of the SECAF designated Centers of Industrial and Technical excellence.

151 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST All factors of production cost to include labor, material, maintenance, engineering, and the depot maintenance portion of general contract costs such as award fees, over-and-above, and program management Financial systems, requirements documents, budget records, and contract records from which the PM should obtain obligations Procedures for PMs to document the rationale and methodology for estimating ICS and CLS depot maintenance expenditures when contracts do not provide for detailed depot maintenance accounting Partnerships excluded from 10 USC 2466 which meet the 10 USC 2474 Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: Designation; Public-Private Partnerships, requirements for exclusion The PM shall support AFMC, IAW AFMC developed procedures by: Tracking obligated depot maintenance funds for their programs, regardless of the source of funds, for the purpose of reporting these obligations to AFMC Documenting rationale and methodology for tracking obligated depot maintenance funds Ensuring contracts for depot maintenance include requirements to document and report upon request funds obligated for depot level maintenance The first time a weapon system or other item of military equipment described in subsection (a)(3) Title 10 USC 2464 is determined to be a commercial item for the purposes of exception the PM shall document the justification for the determination and include at a minimum: The estimated percentage of parts commonality of the item version that is sold or leased in the commercial marketplace and the Government s version of the item The value of unique support, test equipment, and tools that is necessary to support the military requirements if the item were maintained by the Government A comparison of the estimated life cycle logistics support costs that would be incurred by the Government if the item were maintained by the private sector with the estimated life cycle logistics support costs that would be incurred by the Government if the item were maintained by the Government Public-Private Partnerships. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are a logistics sustainment philosophy involving a cooperative agreement between DOD and private sector entities. A PPP for depot maintenance is an agreement between the buying authority (e.g. PM or PGM), one or more organic maintenance activities (including geographically separated organizations/units of a depot/center), and one or more private industry entities to perform work or utilize facilities and equipment. The purpose of PPP is to leverage the optimal capabilities of both the public and private sectors in order to enhance depot support to the warfighter. Goals of partnering are more responsive product support, improved facility utilization, reduced cost of ownership, more efficient business processes, and improved AF 50-50/Core posture The PM shall identify potential public-private partnerships (PPP) as early as possible in the acquisition life cycle. New weapon systems that are establishing their support

152 152 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 concept shall require consideration of PPP in the RFP for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase. Fielded weapon systems changing their depot maintenance support shall proactively consider use of the organic depots as part of a public-private partnership (PPP) strategy The PM shall capture cost data for all factors of production related to PPPs (e.g., direct labor, overhead, materiel, G&A). The cost data shall be quantifiable and measurable utilizing generally accepted accounting practices The PM in collaboration with candidate depots, lead/using commands and other stakeholders will develop a depot maintenance strategy that addresses both the requirement to conduct organic repair and to pursue a PPP approach, where feasible. The information necessary to implement the strategy will be included as part of the RFP for the EMD Phase to ensure depot posturing requirements are addressed Statutory authorities used to support depot maintenance partnerships are listed in Table 3.2 Depot Maintenance Partnership Authorities. Table 3.2. Depot Maintenance Partnership Authorities. Authority Description 10 USC 2208(j) Permits depots financed through Working Capital Funds to sell articles or services 10 USC 2474 Requires Military Services to designate depots as Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE) and authorizes and encourages public-private partnerships 10 USC 2539(b) Authorizes the sale of service for testing of materials, equipment, models, computer software and other items. 10 USC 2563 Authorizes the sale of articles or services outside the DOD under specified conditions. 10 USC 2667 Allows leasing of equipment and facilities. 22 USC 2754 Allows sale of articles or services to friendly countries with certain conditions. 22 USC 2770 Allows sale of articles or services to a U.S. company for incorporation into an end item scheduled to be sold to a friendly country or international organization under specific conditions. FAR, Subpart 45.3 FAR, Subpart 45.4 Permits provision of government-furnished equipment, materials and facilities to contractors. Provides for contractor use and rental of government property There are three types of PPPs: direct sales agreement (DSA), work share arrangement, and leases.

153 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST In a DSA dollars flow from the Government buying activity directly to the contractor. The contractor in turn funds the depot by funds transfer to the Department of Treasury for the goods/services supplied by the depot. Those funds received for work performed in support of a PPP are credited to the depot s Working Capital Fund rather than getting deposited into a general US fund account. The contractor may also supply materiel to the depots in support of the PPP A work share is a partnership where the buying activity determines the best mix of work that capitalizes on each partner s capabilities. The workload is then shared between the contractor and the organic repair entity. The contractor is funded through a contract, and the organic depot is funded through a project order. The partnering arrangement between the organic repair entity and contractor focuses on the roles and responsibilities of each partner, and both jointly work to accomplish the overall requirement Leases allow private industry access to facilities/equipment located at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE). Facilities or equipment located at a CITE may be made available to private industry to perform maintenance or produce goods, as long as it does not preclude the CITE from performing its mission. The goal is to make those Government owned facilities more efficient and ensure that a workforce with the necessary manufacturing and maintenance skills are available to meet the needs of the armed forces Centralized Asset Management (CAM). This paragraph does not apply to the National Guard Bureau (NGB), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) or space programs. CAM is the management and execution of sustainment funding by one AF process owner. AFMC is the designated AF CAM Executive Agent and shall designate a CAM Director for CAM-associated funding, requirements determination, and integrated wholesale supply and depot maintenance operations to satisfy the user s operational needs. Reference AFPD 10-9 for more information The AFMC CAM Director shall: Develop, coordinate with MAJCOMs and publish procedures required for CAM execution that are standardized, repeatable, and consistent methods for identifying and prioritizing requirements, reporting expenditures, and tracking outcomes. To the maximum extent, he will use AF automated processes and IT systems Plan, budget, and execute Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance (DPEM); air vehicle related depot-level reparable (DLR); sustainment engineering; TOs), CLS; aviation petroleum, oil and lubricants (AVPOL); flying hour (FH) consumables; and O&M support equipment. CAM shall apply to area base (organic) manufacturing, aircraft, missiles, engines, other major end-items, Materiel Support Division (MSD) exchangeables, non-msd exchangeables, software, and storage Administer CAM funding to users Collaborate with lead commands and PMs on changes to weapon systems requirements/funding prioritization.

154 154 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST Coordinate with appropriate functional support offices prior to reprogramming when statute mandated or reporting requirements, including 50/50 and Core, may be negatively impacted MAJCOMs and PMs shall utilize the HQ AFMC developed CAM procedures, meet established timeframes/suspense, and support associated reviews MAJCOMs and PMs shall collaborate with HQ AFMC to advocate and ensure all requirements associated with weapon systems support receive equitable consideration under CAM Provisioning. The PM of new weapon systems, subsystems, modifications to existing systems, or sustainment of activities of existing weapons systems shall determine and acquire as applicable, the range and quantity of support items necessary to operate and maintain an enditem of materiel for an initial period of service in time to meet/accommodate the operational need date. Support items are items subordinate to, or associated with, an end item (i.e., spares, tools, test equipment and sundry materials) and required to operate, service, repair, or overhaul an end item. The acquisition of provisioning items must be integrated with other elements such as production, support equipment, technical manuals, training, and facilities. The PM shall ensure that the logistics business processes implemented within their applicable programs are aligned with provisioning guidance. Reference DOD R, AFPD 23-1, Materiel Management Policy and Procedures, MIL-PRF-49506, and the AF Initial Provisioning Performance Specification (IPPS) for more information Performance Based Logistics (PBL). Performance based logistics (PBL) is a strategy that applies to new programs; capability and sustainment modifications; and re-procurement of systems, subsystems and commodities that are procured beyond the initial production contract award. The strategy employs an integrated and affordable performance package that is designed to optimize system readiness and reduce the demand on the logistics tail of a system. It is intended to meet performance goals through a support structure based on long-term performance agreements with clear lines of authority and responsibility. Figure 3.2 depicts relationships of a PBL strategy for a weapon system The PM shall utilize and implement a PBL strategy for new acquisition category ACAT I, IA and II systems, unless otherwise justified by a BCA and approved by the MDA. A PBL strategy is preferred on new ACAT III, fielded systems, end items, or commodity acquisition For all cases where PBL is being considered as the support strategy, the PM shall perform a BCA to validate that PBL is cost effective, financially feasible and optimizes system readiness. The strategy decision rationale shall be documented and retained by the PM. Reference AFI , Economic Analysis and AFI , Business Case Analysis (when published) for more information A PBL strategy may provide various levels of support as illustrated below in Figure 3.3, Performance Based Logistics Relationships A PBL strategy shall be tailored to fit the individual system/component in the intended operational environment(s) for the duration of its projected service life. The product support planning and execution process supports translation of performance requirements into system design and is implemented in conjunction with the overall systems

155 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST engineering approach. The PBL strategy shall define performance in terms of military objectives using criteria such as: operational availability, operational reliability, total cost, logistics footprint, and logistics response time. Figure 3.2. Performance Based Logistics Relationships.

156 156 AFI63-101_AFISRASUP_I 10 AUGUST 2011 Figure 3.3. PBL Levels A PBL strategy shall be tailored to fit the individual system/component in the intended operational environment(s) for the duration of its projected service life. The product support planning and execution process supports translation of performance requirements into system design and is implemented in conjunction with the overall systems engineering approach. The PBL strategy shall have the following characteristics: Performance defined in terms of military objectives using criteria such as operational availability, operational reliability, total cost, logistics footprint, and logistics response time Performance measures that reflect the specific service definitions and unique circumstances of the PBL arrangements Focus on system performance outcomes versus individual support elements Best use of public and private sector capabilities through PPP initiatives Long-term agreements with support providers, which may be organic, commercial, and/or a PPP, which empower and provide incentives to meet overarching performance requirements to improve product support effectiveness while reducing TOC BCAs, for new acquisitions, shall have detailed MS C baselines that consider reliability and maintainability projections at the major system repairable level. These individual estimates will be instrumental in providing the basis for contractual actions leading to the implementation of the acquisition product support strategy. PBL strategies and